text string | source string | label_name string | label_id int64 |
|---|---|---|---|
Absolutism is defined as: accepting or believing in absolute principles in political, philosophical, ethical, or theological matters. Note: I'm not talking about a single form of government, I'm talking about the philosophical notion that morality has absolutes. More specifically, this includes but is not limited to moral absolutism. Thus, [moral absolutism] is an ethical view that a particular act is inherently right or wrong. Both take absolutist positions on nearly every major issue facing society today, from prejudice to abortion, medicines, excessive use of force by authorities, war, religion, environmental protection, and security. confirmation bias] tend to seek marginal examples as points. outside. Examples: Anti-vaccine advocates cite cases where pharmaceutical companies abused public trust to sell dangerous drugs, abused their authority to coerce doctors into prescribing them, or conducted unethical research. would point out. Ignore the positive effects of drugs in everyday life and independent studies of individual drugs and vaccines that have confirmed their safety. The other side completely ignores examples of social credit abuse and instead focuses on the effects of good medicine. Neither is completely right or wrong. Not all drugs are "evil" or insidious. Many companies do quite a bit of good deeds, but it's much easier to just ignore the "pharmaceutical companies" as the bad guys and get on with life. Another example is genetic modification. Anyone who opposes GMOs can point to abuse potential and Monsanto's use of proprietary genes. Ignore the benefits of GMOs. GMOs are not inherently "evil" and can be abused and used responsibly. War is perhaps the best example of this. War is always scary, but it is neither inherently good nor bad. Lying down to death is unacceptable, but so is killing a neighbor because they think they might be a threat. The war goes on until one says, "They killed my cousin, so I'll kill them," and the other says, "You killed my cousin, now I'm going to kill yours!" increase. No one wants to see your opponent as human, you need to dehumanize to fight them. Religion is neither inherently bad nor good. Sometimes it is used as a tool to bring hope in the face of absolute despair, but it can also be used to control the same people and justify terrible atrocities. No country, culture, religion, or ethnic group has clean hands. Every community has had its blood shed at some point in history. These past atrocities cannot and should not be used to justify further atrocities. Yet how often do we see people justifying the “killing of all Muslims” on the grounds of the actions of a minority while ignoring their own marginal groups who spread murder, rape and terrorism? Huh? Choice activists ignore the fringe examples of abuse by many abortionists, while anti-abortion activists argue that abortion is an absolute must because of its potential to save lives, prevent unwanted pregnancies in dire circumstances, and for safety reasons. ignore that it may be necessary for Mother. Absolutism is simple, after all, and that's why it's so popular. Pragmatism is inherently difficult and unrefined. In every thread of world news, news and politics, absolutist claims either sink to the top or fade, while the more realistic answers almost always get only a few votes. I understand this. - Victory will be found. EDIT 1: Thank you to everyone who has given me great replies so far! Keep up the good work. This definitely got me thinking a lot. Please be patient with Delta's answer as I will think twice before answering. Hello CMV users! This is a footnote from the moderator. There are a few things to keep in mind. First, don't forget to [READ THE RULES]. If you find an incorrect comment, reporting it is more effective than rejecting it. Speaking of which, [downvoting doesn't change my mind]! If you're thinking of submitting a CMV yourself, check out the Popular Topics Wiki first. Questions or concerns? Feel free to send us a message. Enjoy your CMV! | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
Until about a year ago, I literally loved the idea of living in America. Then I came of age (graduated from college) and signed up for reddit. Everything I've heard about the United States since then makes me wonder why it's called the "Land of Opportunity" and why anyone would want to move there at some point. I am British, so I take decent welfare and universal health insurance for granted, grew up with it, and have relied on both at times. What's more, my college education at one of the world's top 20 universities cost me a total of $20,000 instead of the hundreds of thousands everyone else complains about. My wife had a baby over a year ago, and the most expensive part was parking, which was mostly paid for by the hospital. Employment is adequate, but salaries are similar to those in the US, and you don't have to worry about spending all your money on health insurance. I reflect on my experience and compare it to what I hear about the US on reddit. My guess is that I will be in huge debt, have been bankrupt several times, and generally have my finances in disarray. The worst thing is that I know many other people in the UK who are in a similar situation. Plus, given the recent government shutdown, the political system feels completely screwed up. The UK version isn't that much better, but to be honest, the only good thing I can think of about the US is that there is a ton of money in the US economy (although I think the US economy I don't think you can access anything more than this in ). come here) and land is cheap. I don't want to sound offensive, but if I were to leave the UK and go to another country, I think Canada or Australia would be a better choice at the moment. But I used to have very romantic feelings about the United States, and I hope that those who have CMV will get back to where they came from. Or maybe it's a little less negative. EDIT: Clarified some details, but nothing major. EDIT 2: First there is hostility. I am not saying that the United States is comparable to third world countries, countries in civil war, and so on. My point is that if you want to immigrate from, say, a third world country, the US is probably not the best choice, even though it is often portrayed as such. Addendum 3: This was really engaging and had a much bigger response than I expected. So, a quick recap of what I've learned so far. The health care system is not as bad as I thought and many people are doing well and don't have to pay huge medical bills. -Payment or joint payment. For a fraction of the cost, you can get top-notch care and peace of mind. We have a social system and it works reasonably well. However, there are also limitations. In general, if you're poor enough, you can get by on housing, food stamps, and medical care. But the system was not designed to help the poor. If you are poor, you will probably remain poor. There is a 'no man's land' between being entitled to welfare and earning more than you can get on welfare. If you go over the maximum required, you lose all your benefits and end up with less than you used to, and you end up in a very sticky situation. So basically, if you have the money or the ability to get it, you can succeed. If not, you are either a terrible person or you could be managed by the system. Stay single until you succeed. In summary, don't stay low to medium. Social mobility isn't great, but when it works it really works. After all, without a good job and decent security, I wouldn't move to the US. | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
Side note: I am aware that there are court procedures and laws to prevent teachers from directly imposing promises on students. My point has more to do with the atmosphere, the peer pressure, and the more mindless drone ways we're trying to present these things to our kids Edit 2: In the words of uTehRedBaron , children are not forced to repeat it. I think you're stronger when you say, "The Pledge of Allegiance should never be mentioned in schools. It shouldn't be something that children can object to." It wasn't meant to happen. In general it is not very suitable. Stay away from school completely. This was the point I was getting at I think it's wrong for us to force young children to say the Pledge of Allegiance and devote themselves to a country that they don't understand. If voting turnouts are proof enough, even a lot of the adult population doesn't know a lot about or care a lot about the current government and all the policies and controversies, let alone a child who has likely not yet been taught about all the ins and outs. To me, this is what I hear when children say the pledge: I (a child incapable of comprehending the meaning of these words, nor their implication, or the actions of the leaders for which they speak) Pledge Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands (and even if I don't, I'll be legally bound to sign my life to service in a draft against my will under the Selective Service System, and may have it done so without my knowledge through my high school) one nation under God (whom I am forced to recognize here, even though we are not a Christian nation, and I may have been atheist and may still be if it weren't for indoctrination before the age of reason, or perhaps am not of a monotheistic faith and therefore would not subscribe to devoting myself under a single God) , indivisible (not counting the Civil War...) , with liberty and justice for all (so long as you're not a woman, minority, immigrant, or homosexual... basically you're fine if you're a 'Merican born rich white man) Now, I'm not trying to be "mean" to children and say they cannot possibly be told about these things, and perhaps have some basic grasp of the troubles. I'm saying that they aren't taught, and can't be asked to understand the depth or breadth of the issues at hand. I'm not saying they can't understand the basic concepts of grief and conflict. The grief is certainly understandable. But understanding the complex legal and social implications of serving a great nation like America is absurd. I don't think a child would understand the NSA stealing our information, the consequences of the war we started because of the lies of our leaders... They must not know the government's verdict for MLK's murder or how we keep people in concentration camps...if our legal system remains You probably don't know that murder, bombing, and lynching go unpunished. Shortly after that promise, their fathers are still unable to marry because it is an aversion to some group's ideals...a degree of indoctrination with a wholly disturbing connotation involved. Like the Bellamy salute, which is no longer seen, we now have our hands on our chests because doing it the way it used to be resembles a totalitarian fascist regime like Nazi Germany. Because you know what it means. Hello CMV users! This is a footnote from the moderator. There are a few things to keep in mind. First, don't forget to [READ THE RULES]. If you find an incorrect comment, reporting it is more effective than rejecting it. Speaking of which, [downvoting doesn't change my mind]! If you're thinking of submitting a CMV yourself, check out the Popular Topics Wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to send us a message. Enjoy your CMV! | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
It is my strong belief that there is no one on the planet who is inherently unable to enter into or avoid relationships with people who are related to their bodies. For example, the human body is his car. No car is exactly the same, but many are very similar and many are very different. When you enter into a relationship with a car owner, the car is of little importance. Sure, it's nice to have a pretty good car if you drive with her, but it means nothing inside your relationship. And if I have a desire to be in a better car than yours, there is absolutely no good reason for anyone I am associated with to be angry that I am driving a car other than this one . Even if I rent a car and drive, it's my choice and it doesn't affect how I view the people I'm dating. The car I drive has nothing to do with how I view the person I'm dating. The same applies to the human body. This can be extended to other ideas that the human body is sacred. Inflicting non-consensual violence on a human body is ethically no different than a car accident. Same goes for mutilation and rape. Sex reassignment, implants, bionics, tattoos, piercings, liposuction, organ donation, or any other consensual act that sees the human body as more important than the car you drive, whatever you can think of. I do not intend to disparage or discredit any of the groups mentioned. I just don't agree with the idea that people shouldn't mess with their bodies. I agree that you should probably seek professional help if you don't know what you're doing, but otherwise, just like a car, it's your body and Just a vehicle to drive through life. The human body alone has no intrinsic value. Whether it's the car you drive or eternal death, it shouldn't change much if you don't have that desire. Sure, it's more serious, but it's only more serious and should be treated the same. We have no zero tolerance policy. Remember, a car accident can mean death. To put the analogy back, in reality everyone is omnisexual and just gets annoyed with the vehicle that person is driving. In this regard, there is nothing wrong with men having relationships with ugly women and sometimes having sex with beautiful women. By agreement, the other party can't say much more about which car they want to drive. This example can go in any direction. I also want to clarify the difference between love and sex. In the former case, the primary goal is intimacy, and in the latter, sexual gratification. The second has nothing to do with the person you're having sex with unless you teach yourself to believe it. Let me be clear, I do not support non-consensual acts on the human body, but I also do not believe that the human body is sacred. It doesn't matter which body I like and who I like. There is nothing wrong with improving your body to suit your personality, as long as you maintain your health. (The car has to keep going, right?) Again, I'm not trying to disrespect anyone. We want to show that there is no rational argument against conforming to the human body in a consensual, professional and healthy way. . CMV please Hello CMV users! This is a footnote from the moderator. There are a few things to keep in mind. First, don't forget to [READ THE RULES]. If you find an incorrect comment, reporting it is more effective than rejecting it. Speaking of which, [downvoting doesn't change my mind]! If you're thinking of submitting a CMV yourself, check out the Popular Topics Wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to send us a message. Enjoy your CMV! | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
First, yes, I am aware that the term "American attitude" is rather vague. America is not a homogenous being with a single attitude. I am basically referring to my general impression of the country's attitude towards this issue, which is reflected in the practices of the establishments selling these beverages. I'm British and just returned from her month vacation in the US (mainly California, but also Arizona, Nevada, and briefly Illinois). One obvious cultural difference between the UK and the US that strikes me is the attitude towards drinks. America is pretty strict with alcohol - it's less easily available than in the UK for a variety of reasons (fewer bars, higher prices, higher drinking age, etc.). I may add that most ales and lagers are downright atrocious and terrible. Story was it. Anyway, America's attitude towards alcohol is pretty good. Treated like a dangerous drug. But America's view of soft drinks is downright shocking. In America, it's almost impossible to walk down the street without Coca-Cola choking. The whole country seems to be designed so that every citizen can drink the same amount of Coke, he said. Consume as much Pepper, Fanta, Sprite, etc. as possible. Every restaurant, corner store, bar, coffee shop, hotel, etc. seems to have a secondary goal of making a profit. Her main concern is getting her guests as much sugary liquids as possible before they collapse from diabetes. I feel like I'm hooked again. Now, to the point, here's what suggests to me that the US doesn't seem to realize how unhealthy soft drinks are. Regular bottles such as Coke Mountain, Jewish Spithergent Pepper are significantly larger than their British counterparts. In the UK, 'all you can drink soft drinks' is a new concept and only used by a few chains such as: B. I use Pizza Hut. In the US it is the mainstream standard. All fast food joints, cafes and restaurants have a "well" that can be refilled at any time. Basically, it's a good idea to keep your drink "on the go" rather than just refilling it at all times. Unless you have a great deal of self-control, visiting these places (along with salty fast food) will lead you to drink far more than you would have if sugary liquids weren't readily available. often I don't understand why you would want to refill your drink, because its size is just dreadful. The 'small' cups at McDonald's, Subway, Burger King etc. are usually the size of the UK 'medium' cups. "Medium" is larger than British Large. And by "big," I mean a giant bucket about the size of a small dog. Anyone looking to actually eat a whole big Burger King burger in one sitting should sit down and think carefully about their life choices. Anyway, I think all of this pretty much tells us that the US doesn't seem to think sugary soft drinks like Coke are all that bad for your health. Or, when you realize this, the benefits are too great to limit your drinking. I have seen quite a few monstrous, morbidly obese toddlers during my stay in the United States, but if we take a similar stance to the UK regarding sugary drinks, we will raise their ranks and reduce their size. I couldn't help but wonder if it would help me (just kidding). ). PS - I'm not a medical professional, so I think one way to do this is to change the current view that sugary soft drinks are likely to be harmful to your health. Hello CMV users! This is a footnote from the moderator. There are a few things to keep in mind. First, don't forget to [READ THE RULES]. If you find an incorrect comment, reporting it is more effective than rejecting it. Speaking of which, [downvoting doesn't change my mind]! If you're thinking of submitting a CMV yourself, check out the Popular Topics Wiki first. Questions or concerns? Feel free to send us a message. Enjoy your CMV! | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
Ok, I don't believe in traditional gender roles. I don't think women should stay at home, have children and do household chores. I think the two should do what is convenient for them and I am all for a woman pursuing her own career and being treated fairly in her workplace and so on. What I don't understand is all the stories I see (mainly here, I think) like "slut shaming" and "rape culture". I just don't understand. Someone recently posted this article and it appeared on my Facebook feed. It is now clear that it was written in an entertaining way, emphasizing the author's true feelings. The funny thing is that some women were outraged by the article. He claimed it was extremely offensive and just "bitch shaming". uh...how? I honestly don't know. You can even make fun of Karl Broth doing the exact same thing in the exact same way on Instagram. What's the difference Let's not get into whether it's acceptable to make fun of people. But why is this article humiliating a bitch, but not so morally reprehensible to make fun of men doing the same? I agree that it is unfair for girls to be humiliated with multiple partners while men are praised for doing the same. I agree that this kind of thing happens and it's unfair. However, I don't understand how that applies here. Does anyone believe that the "girl shower" described there doesn't actually exist? Aren't women flaunting their sexuality on social media for attention? If so, what is wrong with this article? Moving on... blurry lines. That song was clearly about rape. I don't understand here either. I've seen the lyrics of this song many times, but I don't understand the problem. Is "I know you want it" interpreted as a rant, regardless of context? It's like assuming that in a situation where someone rapes someone and is trying to justify it, they'll say, "I know you want it," but the girl actually does it. Is there a scenario where you would like to have sex, especially in a club-like sexual atmosphere? Has this ever happened to anyone? Is it possible that the girl in this song is sending mixed signals to the singer, saying in her inner monologue, "I know you want it"? It is also sung to grab. If we assume that the problem is about rape and ignore all other possibilities, it simply "promotes a culture of rape." Obviously, it's not nice to push someone who's clearly said "no" by saying, "I know you want that." at all. And while you can't look at every woman and think, 'I know you want that,' but a simple text, 'I know you want that,' is the answer to that. does not mean that is true. Or what about this? I know some girls in clubs who have advised me that I should go to the dance floor and catch them and dance with them. Be confident and positive. "It's hot." I've dated girls who were waiting for their man to make her first move and wanted him to take the lead. In some cases, you may push yourself against the wall and kiss. The same girls also said they didn't like talking about things (such as prior discussions with verbal consent) and wanted things to "just happen." If I posted the above advice as my own on Reddit, it would be practiced. bad. But these women I spoke to aren't the only ones with this idea. Maybe they are simply underrepresented online or just afraid to speak up. When people have such different expectations, how do you know where the line is? Hmmm...you might know what Blurred Lines is about. He got a sign from a girl, but he doesn't know how to react because of these "blurred lines". Sometimes the lines are completely different. I scolded him anyway. How wrong am I? what am i missing | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
You may have heard that Weezer only released two good albums, Blue and Pinkerton. I expressed it. While I have no objection to Blue's place in history (whether the album is good or not), this album is a pretty weak album and I'm not going to lie. Nearly all songs on Blue are very similar, with the same booming guitar sound, repeated (often rhymed) choruses, simple lyrics, and occasional instrumentation in one song. is included. Many of the songs sound similar and very amateurish, which is to be expected given that this is their debut album. The whole album is very muddy and boring to listen to. The length of the album is also quite short, especially with the exception of the end track cut. Much better variety and quality unlike EWBAITE (Everything Will Be Alright in the End). For example, EWBAITE began with radio noises, a mother telling her daughter not to worry about nightmares, the banging of a guitar, and various voices saying things like "rock is dead" and "I'm proud of you." starts with . , Son,” “All Girls Love You,” and an ever-growing chant of “Ain’t Got Nobody!” This leads us to a great, fast-paced first track. Blue's first track, "My Name Is Jonas", is a simple introduction to most of Blue's songs, featuring a recurring guitar riff at the end of the track. EWBAITE also has his long album cover, probably to remind us of the popular blues song Only in Dreams. Of course, it completely surpasses "Only In Dreams". The first part (The Waste Land) is slow, but heavy on guitar. Anonymous is a great record with its unusual composition and great solos. The chorus is also really good (especially the repeating "Hey!" at 2:00). "Return to Ithaca" is a great song that fits perfectly on the album. The melody is great and closes the album on a high note. But of course the beginning and the end aren't the most important parts of Weezer's album. It's a chorus! I will briefly review the choruses on both albums. 1. My Name Is Jonas - Pretty Decent 2. No One Else - Uh 3. The World Has Turned and Left Me Here - Uh 4. Buddy Holly – Good 5. Undone (The Sweater Song) – Yeah 6. Surf Wax America – Uh 7. Say It Ain't So – Okay 8. In The Garage – Uh 9. Holidays - pretty bad. 10. Only in dreams - ok. Overall: ehhokay is one of his worst songs on the album) 3. Rock a tribute to his band - okay 4. Lonely Girl - Good 5. I've Had It Up to Here - Pretty Good 6. The British Are Coming - Good 7. Da Vinci - Good 8. Go Away - Pretty Good 9. Cleopatra - decent 10. Stupid Father - pretty good (repeat album name at the end: great) 11. Wasteland - NA 12. Anonymous - good 13. Return to Ithaca - NA Overall: so-so good half-joking is. A period, but still important. In a nutshell, The Blue Album is a great 90s debut album, but in almost every way (that I can think of) it's a modern, loud 'Everything Will Be'. It pales in comparison to All Right in the End. I'm sure many of you love the Blue Album (nostalgic?), so I'd love to hear your counterarguments. Required: EWBAITE Pink Red Harley Blue Green Raditude (haven't heard enough to judge the others) Hello fellow CMV users! This is a footnote from the moderators. There are a few things to keep in mind. First, don't forget to [READ THE RULES]. If you find an incorrect comment, reporting it is more effective than rejecting it. Speaking of which, [downvoting doesn't change my mind]! If you're thinking of submitting a CMV yourself, check out the Popular Topics Wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to send us a message. Enjoy your CMV! | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
I'm a pure PC gamer. I own his XBox controller for PC and am very interested in the upcoming Steam controller. However, I'm hesitant to buy an XBox controller because I rarely use it. I've tried several times to get used to playing with a controller, even reinstalling an old game to get used to it and starting to use a controller, but I always fall back to "mouse and keyboard". rice field. Here's why we think "mouse and keyboard" is the best way to play PC games (in any game, KM is really just an option on the PC). A mouse is much more precise than a controller. I can't imagine him playing FPS games with a controller (mostly third person action games like Arkham and Tomb Raider). I believe many FPS games use an aim assist system to compensate for controller precision. I would prefer a more accurate input system than an "assistant" to compensate for the inaccuracies of input devices. The keyboard is something you use all the time, so it's intuitive. Most of us use a computer keyboard and mouse in our daily work. All QWERTY keyboards have the same layout. When the game says "Press X", you know exactly where X is. Even those who are familiar with controller layouts have never spent as much time with this controller as they do with a keyboard and mouse. Keyboard and mouse work in all games. As I mentioned earlier, I prefer KM accuracy in FPS games. But I'm also a big RTS and strategy gamer (Total War is my favorite game) and I couldn't imagine playing a strategy game with a controller. KM works for everything. I also liked Dark Souls with KM, a game many people say can only be played with a controller. Sitting in a computer chair is very comfortable. One of the great benefits we hear about controllers a lot is the ability to play from the couch. I prefer to be close to the display (I'm playing on a 32" TV and sit about a meter away). My keyboard and mouse are on my laptop table and my computer chair is very comfortable. The farther away you sit than on the couch, the more immersed you will be in the game. Why I want to change my mind: I think the Steam Controller is really cool, but I'm not sure I would actually use it. I don't want to buy things that I don't use. Are you missing out on a great experience that only a controller can provide? You have a device you rarely use. If there is a game that gives me a better experience, I would like to use it more. EDIT: So far this thread has a lot of good suggestions. Try playing some of the types of games mentioned above (stealth, action, driving, etc.) for a few minutes to see if a controller would improve your experience. Edit 2: Hello everyone. Thank you for your discussion. There were a lot of positives, but the best was him, Mr. ustoopydumbut, who felt that using a controller would give him an extra challenge. Kudos also to all users who have pointed me to game genres that I don't play but would benefit from a controller (racing, combat sims, flight sims). I would like to continue using the controller as much as possible, but I am considering purchasing the Steam Controller. thank you everyone. This is exactly the conversation I wanted to have. If you add something new, feel free to keep posting. We will continue to read, comment and provide deltas. Hello CMV users! This is a footnote from the moderator. There are a few things to keep in mind. First, don't forget to [READ THE RULES]. If you find an incorrect comment, reporting it is more effective than rejecting it. Speaking of which, [downvoting doesn't change my mind]! If you're thinking of submitting a CMV yourself, check out the Popular Topics Wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to send us a message. Enjoy your CMV! | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
Right out of college, I was looking for my first "real" job, and at the time (1999) I thought 12:50 was a lot of money. So I started working for a hire purchase company and that was the start of five years of pain and suffering. There was a combination of factors that I believe made this right. First, the working hours are long (55 hours per week) and 12:50 has been cut significantly. The starting salary is said to be 27,000 a year, and if you work 55 hours a week instead of the usual 40, the hourly rate is much cheaper. These hoaxes have caused the company to face legal troubles at various points in its history, both before and after I joined. Second, it was very physically demanding. I moved furniture all day, 55 hours a week. We hauled sofas, big screen TVs, washers, dryers, etc. to places they wouldn't normally fit: the basement, the attic, the 3rd floor of our apartment, and up some very dangerous rickety stairs. The third, and probably the worst part, is customer interaction. Our clients were the oppressed, the disadvantaged, criminals, strippers, drug dealers, and more. They were people who had no credit and could not buy the goods they wanted on credit. We rented them the items they wanted and couldn't afford at a premium of 5x what we paid for. They had to present some form of income and four letters of recommendation, as well as an impromptu shiny new one for a house without money. The situation got really bad when we were unable to pay. In addition to having to deliver the package to them, I had to call them when they didn't pay and kept calling multiple times. When they didn't call me back, I called everyone they knew: their mother, sister, brother, boss, cousin. Eventually the landlord called me back and asked me to either pay the money or have the property returned. That brings me to the worst part. Fourth: Collection. People didn't want to return the goods if they couldn't pay more. After talking on the phone for weeks, they hated me, so I had to show up at their house and aggressively grab their merchandise. Drug dealer, criminal, huge ex-con - the worst imaginable. I had to endure their hateful stares while I turned off the TV. The kids were screaming while I was taking the bunk beds apart and loading them into the truck…it sucks. And the worst part was that people had some money and could keep some of their shit, but had to give some stuff back? What do you think is left? A computer or a bunk bed for kids? A racing car bed or a big screen TV? Kid shit went almost every time. It left a permanent scar on me. Oh, and there were some perks too, like driving from strip club to strip club, and raising money from customers who were dancers on their biggest fundraiser day (Saturday). My happiest memory was enlisting the help of local law enforcement to enforce recovery guarantees. While her sheriff holds her down, I have to stand in front of this woman and scream at me and keep scratching me with her blood red gnarled fingers. I did. While I was hugging, each grabbed one of the bedroom dressers, heaped the contents and dumped it onto the roach-infested floor. God, it was lovely. It's been five hellish years, and I want you to change your mind about why this isn't one of the worst jobs in America, if not the worst. EDIT: Hello fellow CMV users to format! This is a footnote from the moderator. There are a few things to keep in mind. First, don't forget to [READ THE RULES]. If you find an incorrect comment, reporting it is more effective than rejecting it. Speaking of which, [downvoting doesn't change my mind]! If you're thinking of submitting a CMV yourself, check out the Popular Topics Wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to send us a message. Enjoy your CMV! | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
OK, I understand that there are some things better in the 2010s than in the 2000s, and if you look at it all, there really isn't much difference between this decade and the last half-century; there are even also things which haven't improved since the same period to the point we've taken for granted. From the top of my head, science and technology are constantly improving as with every succeeding year and gay rights are being expanded further in the West; there's also a civil war in South Sudan (2012 was "the most peaceful year in a while," but wars have always happened) and there are drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen (just as unjustifiable or more than that as invading Iraq for their oil last decade, and there has been worse events in history). I also acknowledge that I may feel this way purely due to nostalgia; the 2000s has been my childhood. My issue with the 2010s overall, is over much more trivial matters: I do not like the music of this decade; it sounds incredibly cheap and manufactured, more so than the 2000s. Even though there may have been some songs that did sound annoying in the 2000s, the style they do it in the 2010s (where they use autotune and really unmelodic sounds and instruments) is worse, where I feel that the 2000s was more authentic and soulful; I feel like that 2010s music may have been desperately composed by some three year old, and that people's ability to write great sounding music has deteriorated. Video games are also a lot less fun thanks to greedy devs and publishers (EA forced Battlefield to make nearly no changes in Battlefield 4 and THQ messed up the next Saints Row game after Saints Row 2, and forced Volition to release Saints Row 4 only one or two years after they released Saints Row 3 when they were still working on an expansion pack, which caused SR4 to have next to no changes in gameplay); the fact that more people are going online to play has made gaming less of a social experience, and if people want to socialise via games, it's a lot more hostile. My views on fashion and design, I guess, are completely opinionated; I understand how bland everything looked back in the decade, from the cars people drove to the clothes people wore, but I much preferred it over today's cars (have you seen the new Honda NS-X concept, the C7 Corvette Ford Fiesta and Focus?), fashion (I find the quiffs, pastel skinny jeans and pastel-coloured zip-up hoodies an eyesore although I have nothing against guys looking like girls and I just experience slight discomfort) and in general, design, (even though I prefer iOS 7 because iOS 6 kinda appeals only to professionals). I also don't like the changes that has occurred over the Internet (I understand why Megaupload was taken down, but thought it to be kinda selfish when Yahoo! took down Avatars and messed up the Answers layout, so now I can't extend my questions, and Yahoo! is part of PRISM; I also know that people hate how Google's trying to unify Google with their other services such as YouTube with the comment system, and the fact that ads appear before every other YouTube video, which is proof of the service's increasing monetisation); I've practically stopped watching TV (I liked Doctor Who before the 11th Doctor) also because of the Internet and because I can't find anything good on TV (I'm immature for still liking cartoons). There are other reasons why I'll pick on this decade, but I might explain in the comments or make changes to the OP if they come up. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. There are a few things to keep in mind. First, don't forget to [READ THE RULES]. If you find an incorrect comment, reporting it is more effective than simply ignoring it. Speaking of which, [downvoting doesn't change my mind]! If you're thinking of submitting a CMV yourself, check out the Popular Topics Wiki first. Questions or concerns? Feel free to send us a message. Enjoy your CMV! | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
First off I'll say that I absolutely DO believe satire has a place in the world, and I think it's a beautiful thing when we feel comfortable enough to make fun of the less-pleasant things in both ourselves and in society. Plus, it's a helpful tool at not only coping with the greyer things of life, but also drawing awareness to issues that otherwise might go unnoticed, allowing for more action to be taken to resolve them. However, I think when satire becomes the norm and we start to fail to see it for the social critique it is, it begins to lose its meaning and may even go far enough to reinforce the themes and attitudes that it's criticising. I know this is just a very basic example, but take South Park and it's Jew jokes. Growing up as a teenage male, all the guys my age found Cartman asking Kyle for his bag of "jew gold" to be the funniest thing ever, and being an impressionable adolescent I naturally went along with it, and so the stereotype of greedy Jews was born into my mind. I live in a society where there are very few Jews, but I was too young and stupid to think about satire, and I already had preconceived notions about Jews in my head. Now, it may be argued that (a) South Park is not for young teens anyway, and (b) children are naturally drawn to adult humor, but I , I'd like to say that it can handle practically adult themes. Unfortunately, many people do not develop the capacity to understand the intricacies of satire as adults, and are only able to understand superficial jokes. If people don't understand the true intent of satire, the problem tends to normalize as people get used to it. I don't think it's necessary to point out that this can exacerbate the problem. Remember, satire doesn't exist in isolation. Satire's effectiveness rests on the premise that people can and do recognise what it's making fun of. This is diminished when your entire source of entertainment becomes satire, and your ability to perceive the topics it's addressing lowers because you assume that making fun of the world is "just how entertainment is," rather than being the tool to make light of these issues that it's supposed to be. Take GTA for example, this is a series whose entire entertainment platform is being a biting critique of modern society, but because it's so over-the-top and so constant, it's very easy for to lose the message and the end result is that the games themselves become the very thing they're likely railing against. And lastly, and this is probably just a pet peeve of mine, but I feel like when the comedic and entertainment focus is on satire, we forget that the OTHER half of dealing with problems is presenting possible solutions to solve them. Play Grand Theft Auto for too long and it's easy to get depressed and sour at the godawful portrayal of humanity the creators present. Watching too many anime sitcoms will only make you think the world is a steaming pile of shit that gets teased at every turn. Instead of actively showing people how they want to approach these issues, they just point to a big rubber hand and say, "Look!" Look, how awful it is! It can be depressing, selfish, even irresponsible and make people forget that the world is a solvable place. Change your mind! Hello CMV users! This is a footnote from the moderator. There are a few things to keep in mind. First, don't forget to [READ THE RULES]. If you find an incorrect comment, reporting it is more effective than simply ignoring it. Speaking of which, [downvoting doesn't change my mind]! If you're thinking of submitting a CMV yourself, check out the Popular Topics Wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to send us a message. Enjoy your CMV! | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
HBO's Real Sports and many other outlets have been talking about the NCAA a lot lately. For those who don't know, the National Collegiate Athletic Association is a 'non-profit' that rakes in the dough for itself and many other people (universities, coaches, ESPN, advertisers, etc) all while maintaining that their players are 'student athletes' and should not be paid. Their reasons for this range from, "They're getting paid in an education," to, "We're protecting them from the dangers of being a professional, money-making athlete," to, "They're playing for the love and the spirit of the game, not for money." The reality is that very few NCAA athletes will go on to make big money in professional sporting leagues, some get injured and lose their tenure, sometimes the classes they take are jokesfake classes for credit that teach them nothing useful, and those who do get chronic or life-changing injuries are not given workman's comp becuase...well, they're not employees. My first assertion is the one I think is less controversial: The NCAA is running a bit of a scam. They make gobs of money off of 'student athletes', and the situation is slanted very much to their benefit. That's bad business. My second claim is what I want to know the most. No one forced anyone to get involved, it's a stupid decision you made yourself, at least to some extent. And the losing player doesn't necessarily "owe" anything for it. The NCAA requires you to sign a contract. No signature required. You don't have to accept a scholarship. You can get into college based on what most of us non-athletes have gone through: the strength of our academic success. You took a risk and perhaps acted stupid, but now the consequences are built in. Perhaps tragic, but still your decision. And the reality is that there is a high-risk, high-reward process at work here, and people will engage in it to some extent in order to reap the rewards. They signed the deal because they want to be one of the few professional athletes to earn millions of dollars and are willing to take some risks to get there. For the same reason, many people aspire to become Hollywood actors, a low-paid, employment-rate 2 profession. They all dream of becoming Tom Cruise and are ready to take risks. It doesn't matter if it's a rational decision because that's her life, right? HBO's Real Sports also recently revealed an NFL cheerleader. The bottom line is that NFL cheerleaders make very little money, have to pay for their equipment themselves, have to follow very strict rules, and generally lead a shy life. All of this sounds terrible and I'm mad at the forces that "exploit" cheerleaders, but if it's that bad, why are so many future cheerleaders still coming to tryouts? you need to ask yourself. No one is forcing them to do this, right? Young women are still willing to continue participating in trial training sessions, so those in power can get away with it. Basic supply and demand applies. After all, how much can we humans actually save ourselves from? There are clearly deeper social and economic issues here that we need to address, but let's stay with the sport for now. Why isn't it enough to simply say, "The NCAA is bad business, I suggest you do something else." Why do we need a law requiring the NCAA to change its practices, as some have suggested? Unless they commit fraud, what else should we monitor? I also realize that all of this raises questions. Perhaps the problem is that we praise the sport too much? It's just a game after all. But we, like Hollywood, have made it very important that people dream of the glamour, fame, and “greatness” that our culture sees as part of the whole. Perhaps both us and the NCAA are to blame here? | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
Edit: Thank you to everyone who replied! I just found out about Delta Airlines. I hand them out in the morning when I'm at my computer (pro tip: don't do it on the phone). I don't answer the phone anymore for the rest of the night. Feel free to continue the conversation. However, there was no contact until morning. thanks again! My hypothesis: Capitalism is cannibalism. Due to various factors, economic agents at the bottom of the economy (the poor) eventually disappear from the economic map and become non-entities. This leads to a concentration of currency in the rest of the actor collective. As more money circulates, prices rise due to supply and demand (inflation). This reduces the purchasing power of the remaining players, pushing them to the bottom and eventually disappearing from the map, perpetuating the cycle. Economic players are disappearing from the map for a variety of reasons, including: 1) Death or illness 2) Poor and expensive. H. Economic agents do not have the purchasing power to take advantage of bulk shipments and other cost-cutting measures. Nevertheless, it is cheaper to make your own handicraft materials. Overall, this leads to fewer purchases from low-end players. 3) Low-end actors are required to complete crafting and production tasks to keep manufacturing costs low. However, if costs increase, salaries must be maintained or reduced to make up for lost profit margins. This will encourage companies to shift jobs to workers who can pay lower wages, such as in China. In addition, manufacturing automation reduces the number of people that need to be employed to manufacture a product, thereby reducing manufacturing costs. However, the price of the product does not fall by that amount, so the profit margin can be maintained at a high level. This also contributes to creations other than actors. 4) When people fight as inferior agents or become non-agents, they tend to be alienated from the very economic system that supports them. Having lost faith in the system, they will use whatever they can to survive. And the alienation of the economic system becomes the alienation of society as a whole. When these non-doers steal or sell illegal goods in order to survive, denial of the law and marginalization follow immediately. 5) In essence, currency exchange is really an exchange of energy. Exchanging one kind of work for another. But the laws of supply and demand arbitrarily set the value of that currency, not to best match the energy invested in the product, but to exchange as much currency as possible for a given amount of work. to change Its value is determined by psychological factors rather than actual scientific or mathematical principles. This exchange of labor for the largest possible currency would lead directly to inflation and ultimately undermine the original goal of achieving prosperity. Again, when people disappear from the map, the money left in the system goes into the hands of the remaining players, increasing the concentration of currency among players. This increased concentration of currencies drives up commodity prices for these entities, while making it difficult for non-entities or slow-moving entities to participate in the economy. This price increase negates the benefits provided by currency concentration. So prosperity hasn't actually increased. The end result is higher inflation and less brisk economic activity. Actual average real wealth per capita does not increase. Note: I understand that regulation can and does change the variables in this equation, just like central banks play around with interest rates and such. However, the inherent equation remains. Hello CMV users! This is a footnote from the moderator. There are a few things to keep in mind. First, don't forget to [READ THE RULES]. If you find an incorrect comment, reporting it is more effective than rejecting it. Speaking of which, [downvoting doesn't change my mind]! If you're thinking of submitting a CMV yourself, check out the Popular Topics Wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to send us a message. Enjoy your CMV! | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
Over the last few years, I've become a big fan of Major League Baseball, watching dozens of games for my team (the Rockies) and chasing the playoffs. But the regular season is too long when you consider the number of games. Each team plays his 162 games each season, plus he plays 29 games in spring training just before the season starts. That's roughly twice the number of regular-season games in the NBA and ten times the number of regular-season NFL games. That means each team will play five to six games a week for almost seven months (excluding the postseason), not including the All-Star's relatively brief hiatus. This has many negative effects. First, frequent wear and tear during the game causes injury to positional players. How often are starters out for weeks with tight hamstrings, sore shoulders or knees? Position players often need to rest. Second, too many games prevent baseball from becoming a national sport like basketball or soccer. With so many games, just following your local team is enough to get you acquainted with a year's worth of baseball. Already watching five Rockies games a week, I don't feel much desire to watch a Yankees-Red Sox game on national television. Compare that to other major sports, especially soccer. I have plenty of time to follow the rest of the game while following the team. This is part of the reason why soccer and basketball have become national sports and therefore more relevant to national culture. Fatigue from the heavy game load causes the game's viewership to drop significantly on national television. Third, as the number of games declines, so does local TV ratings and stadium viewership. With 162 games, even if he misses one or his five games in the season, there is no sense of missed opportunity because no game is important in and of itself (his 20-30 at the end of the season). Apart from the match, a small number of players will play)). 30 teams competing for playoff berths in September). This is especially true during the off-season in June, July and early August. Fourth, it becomes even harder for casual fans to become more loyal fans, as teams are hard to follow when too many games are played. It takes a lot of motivation and time investment to become a more loyal fan, especially if your team isn't competitive. Fifth, the high number of games means the season has to be very long. Spring training begins in early March, and the World Series takes place in late October. This causes him two big problems. First, baseball can't be played in bad weather, and most teams play in open stadiums, so there's a risk of snow canceling games at the beginning and end of the season, especially during the playoffs. Second, it means baseball and soccer need to overlap at the end of the season. Given football's sheer dominance in viewership and sports coverage in the news, the only thing that can be done is divert the attention and interest of fans away from baseball when baseball heats up. I believe the regular season will need to be shortened by at least 20 games, maybe 50-60 games, to solve the above five problems. So Reddit, change your mind! Hello CMV users! This is a footnote from the moderator. There are a few things to keep in mind. First, don't forget to [READ THE RULES]. If you find an incorrect comment, reporting it is more effective than rejecting it. Speaking of which, [downvoting doesn't change my mind]! If you're thinking of submitting a CMV yourself, check out the Popular Topics Wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to send us a message. Enjoy your CMV! | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
I've seen a lot of CMV posts about total child support waivers, but I have a slightly different take on the issue and would love to hear the opposite. From what I've read about child support calculations, different states and countries use different models, but what they all have in common is income. It may also consider factors such as the age of the child, income differences between the parents, and living standards adjustments. While it makes sense in theory, the practical implications are very disturbing, and I believe the basis for the law regulating the calculation of children's age is: Somewhat poor child support is outdated and unfair. Here's a summary of my objections: Why should we consider income over a certain amount? For example, consider two friends, Jane and Anna. Jane has a child with her ex-boyfriend who makes $25,000 a year, and Anna has a child with an ex-boyfriend who makes $150,000 a year. Assuming that both women had similar incomes and lifestyles before having children, most alimony calculations would give Anna much more than Jane. but why? Do Anna's kids make more money than Jane's kids? Why should the calculations assume a relationship or marriage? Many child support calculations are based on the income a child would have had if the parents had lived together. If a woman becomes pregnant as a result of a one-night stand or a non-serious relationship, why should a court consider that the parents lived together and raised the child? They use their income differently. So why should we accept and consider relationships that don't exist at all? Why is the standard of living important? Some upkeep calculations take into account the normal or increased standard of living when calculating the upkeep. Let's be honest, do we really need to pay $5,000 a month in child support? Why should just because someone be rich automatically be expected to provide their children with a lot of financial help? Where is the money going? Most of the time not everything is positive for the child, but I think that's the problem. The purpose of child support is to support the child, not to cost the child and the custodial parent. In my opinion, there is a need to develop a basic formula (adjusted for cost of living by region) that takes into account the average amount needed to meet basic monthly needs for children of different ages. This amount takes into account food, transportation, clothing, medical expenses, and other expenses. This makes it easy to look up child support amounts from a spreadsheet without investing time and resources in courts and legal decisions. If this amount exceeds 15 times your net monthly income, the dependent parent will be restricted to paying 15% in child support. Parents should not have financial difficulties paying their own bills to keep child support payments. If this amount is less than 15 times her monthly net income, the parent will pay the amount specified in the formula. If 5050 parents have joint custody, no child support accrues as both parents must be equally responsible for the child's support. In other custody situations, the amount of alimony is calculated up or down based on the custody rate. So am I missing something here? In my opinion, what I have outlined above seems to be a much fairer system than the current way child support is calculated. Mr. CMV, please. Hello CMV users! This is a footnote from the moderator. There are a few things to keep in mind. First, don't forget to [READ THE RULES]. If you find an incorrect comment, reporting it is more effective than rejecting it. Speaking of which, [downvoting doesn't change my mind]! If you're thinking of submitting a CMV yourself, check out the Popular Topics Wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to send us a message. Enjoy your CMV! | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
I see it often. Western leaders tout the great advantages of democracy, downplay the anti-democratic behavior of other countries, and denounce (often very ironically) other countries for not accepting institutions they clearly see as good for their own people. increase. But I do not believe that democracy necessarily benefits the people, nor that the correlation between development and democracy that many are trying to establish is wrong. Some of the main issues I have with democracy are: The public is not always well-informed about electoral issues and often makes wrong decisions about who to vote for in order to resolve issues. There are countless examples of elections “failing” and crappy leaders screwing things up. Moreover, people misunderstand even basic economics, leading them to believe that much of the economic debate around "job creation" applies, but that higher education (and better critical thinking skills) ) is believed to lead to something completely different. (This could obviously be solved by improving public education. Unfortunately, doing so would be a "violation of the democratic right not to receive compulsory education.") Many of today's nations lack democracy. prosper, but many democracies fail. The Soviet Union experienced significant economic growth from its founding to her mid-twentieth century as part of her five-year plan for the Soviet Union. Yes, the human rights situation was not the best, but is it better than in some democratically elected states? The government remains under the control of the constitution declaring the Ayatollah and Iran an Islamic republic. A democratic state can have both good and bad sides, so it is meaningless to say that ``democracy is inherently good'' if it can lead to bad results. People want their right to democracy, but they are reluctant to fill the gap. You should be expected to participate in ways other than voting because you have more freedom and the right to choose your government. If you vote and send an official to represent you in government, you must make sure that person represents you well and demand justice if it does not. Not only do people not take advantage of this vital tool of democratic elections, but sometimes it is not even legal. Toronto Mayor Rob Ford sparked a public outcry last year when he admitted to using crack cocaine during his tenure. While people demanded his resignation, bureaucracy and claims of democracy kept him in power because "the law doesn't allow it." Because the law was enacted, people just stopped and just got angry and calm. That's not how democracy works. If an elected official does not perform his duties competently, the people who elected him must and should have every right to rise up and recall him. Otherwise, what kind of democracy is putting people into positions of power? why not delete? TL;DR: Democracy (usually in its modern form) not only prevents people from interacting better with government and determining their own destinies, but it even legally prevents them from doing so. We don't have to be so strict about democratic doctrine. We have seen that by restricting some liberties, increasing taxes, and giving the government more power (while allowing the government to make more demands of its citizens), we can improve the country. rice field. . In fact, I believe that it should be the duty of democratic governments to engage and better educate their people about economics, politics, and history so that they can participate more effectively. Hello CMV users! This is a footnote from the moderator. There are a few things to keep in mind. First, don't forget to [READ THE RULES]. If you find an incorrect comment, reporting it is more effective than rejecting it. Speaking of which, [downvoting doesn't change my mind]! If you're thinking of submitting a CMV yourself, check out the Popular Topics Wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to send us a message. Enjoy your CMV! | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
I'm a pure PC gamer. I own his XBox controller for PC and am very interested in the upcoming Steam controller. However, I'm hesitant to buy an XBox controller because I rarely use it. I've tried several times to get used to playing with a controller, even reinstalling an old game to get used to it and starting to use a controller, but I always fall back to "mouse and keyboard". rice field. Here's why we think "mouse and keyboard" is the best way to play PC games (in any game, KM is really just an option on the PC). A mouse is much more precise than a controller. I can't imagine him playing FPS games with a controller (mostly third person action games like Arkham and Tomb Raider). I know that many FPS games use aim assist systems to compensate for controller imprecision. I would prefer a more accurate input system than an "assistant" to compensate for the inaccuracies of input devices. The keyboard is something you use all the time, so it's intuitive. Most of us use a computer keyboard and mouse in our daily work. All QWERTY keyboards have the same layout. When the game says "Press X", you know exactly where X is. Even those who are familiar with controller layouts have never spent as much time with this controller as they do with a keyboard and mouse. Keyboard and mouse work in all games. As I mentioned earlier, I prefer KM accuracy in FPS games. But I'm also a big RTS and strategy gamer (Total War is my favorite game) and I couldn't imagine playing a strategy game with a controller. KM works for everything. I liked Dark Souls better with KM. It is said that this game can only be played with a controller by many people. Sitting in a computer chair is very comfortable. One of the great benefits we hear about controllers a lot is the ability to play from the couch. I prefer to be close to the display (I'm playing on a 32" TV and sit about a meter away). My keyboard and mouse are on my laptop table and my computer chair is very comfortable. The farther away you sit than on the couch, the more immersed you will be in the game. Why I want to change my mind: I think the Steam Controller is really cool, but I'm not sure I would actually use it. I don't want to buy things that I don't use. Are you missing out on a great experience that only a controller can provide? You have a device you rarely use. If there is a game that gives me a better experience, I would like to use it more. EDIT: So far this thread has a lot of good suggestions. Try playing some of the types of games mentioned above (stealth, action, driving, etc.) for a few minutes to see if a controller would improve your experience. Edit 2: Hello everyone. Thank you for your discussion. There were a lot of positives, but the best was him, Mr. ustoopydumbut, who felt that using a controller would give him an extra challenge. Kudos also to all users who have pointed me to game genres that I don't play but would benefit from a controller (racing, combat sims, flight sims). I would like to continue using the controller as much as possible, but I am considering purchasing the Steam Controller. thank you everyone. This is exactly the conversation I wanted to have. If you add something new, feel free to keep posting. We will continue to read, comment and provide deltas. Hello CMV users! This is a footnote from the moderator. There are a few things to keep in mind. First, don't forget to [READ THE RULES]. If you find an incorrect comment, reporting it is more effective than rejecting it. Speaking of which, [downvoting doesn't change my mind]! If you're thinking of submitting a CMV yourself, check out the Popular Topics Wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to send us a message. Enjoy your CMV! | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
Here is my problem. I have two interests that I am actively pursuing. One is anime and manga, the other is club soccer (we wouldn't call it soccer, succumbing to America's dominance on reddit). Obviously, especially in Europe, these are two different levels (I'm from Germany). Some of my acquaintances may like comics, but my whole class is always in Berlin. But now, watching my first world championship on reddit, I noticed something. rsoccer was really excited, because they would not become a default for the WC and that way avoid one thing that is pretty nonexistent where I am from: "Hype-Fans." People not really into football, but when such a big event comes up they suddenly are someone who knows everything better. Maybe my friends and family are a bit extreme, maybe not, but I grew up with one team and would know what to talk about when I saw someone with a blue-white scarf. I may not watch the qualifying matches but I have informed myself about each and every qualifying game for the WC that Germany and France had and looked at the results of pretty much most of them. I don't want to state that I know a lot, in fact, I don't know a lot, but I know that I don't know everything! Now that the WC is here there are a lot of people, not only from the US, from everywhere, that will only turn on the TV for 3 matches or so and will come up with critical flaws in a game that is thousands of years old and they can pinpoint not only the flaw but can also solve it with that easy rule change. And that really annoys me (I never saw Batman but I saw the Bane meme a lot and think I am a bit like this, they only adopted my passion, I grew up in it, I was molded by it!) The fact is that it it were so easy to solve some problems of the game, either they'd be already solved or it would no longer be football, it would be a different game! So please stop trying. The same goes for anime and manga. Anime and manga are becoming more mainstream, and with that comes more and more people who don't like certain aspects of anime or manga and want to change it to make it 'better', so I am very I try to join small circles of friends and discuss anything. This is bullshit and so frustrating that I can't watch something as simple as "XYZ reacts to animated ZYX" by Fine Brothers on YouTube. This is actually just humor, but you can't see it. I don't like it when people with limited knowledge about hobby A react to it. I am the same. Unless I'm 100% sure and preferably can cite a source, I'll keep my mouth shut. This makes it impossible to really make friends. Also, by finding it, you can avoid problems. Because I don't form an opinion about anything unless I have scientific evidence to support my opinion. My problem is that I know it's bad. Maybe it's good to rally people in toilets, and maybe it's good that anime and manga become mainstream and manga artists earn a little more (although the existing community probably doesn't like that) . And since it's generally not a good idea to be too pessimistic, please tell us why CMV. Hello CMV users! This is a footnote from the moderator. There are a few things to keep in mind. First, don't forget to [READ THE RULES]. If you find an incorrect comment, reporting it is more effective than rejecting it. Speaking of which, [downvoting doesn't change my mind]! If you're thinking of submitting a CMV yourself, check out the Popular Topics Wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to send us a message. Enjoy your CMV! | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
The only argument I can make is that there is no such thing as the greatest country in the world, but suppose you had to choose for that purpose. No country is doing more than the United States. Consider all the criteria you used to arrive at your conclusion. Economy: The United States is unsurprisingly the second largest economy in the world. It's not particularly close. However, the EU as a whole has a larger economy than the US. The US GDP per capita is higher than the GDP of the EU as a whole. (Nominal) [USA ranks 4th in median income] The US dollar is the benchmark for international trade and investment. Science: For her 60 years, the United States has been at the forefront of space exploration and discovery. Even after we complete our manned program, probes like Voyager are still making discoveries. Hubble and other powerful telescopes will enable unprecedented scientific advances. The ISS, which is heavily funded by the United States, is impressive evidence that we can live in orbit for long periods of time. [Not to mention the myriad technologies derived from NASA] He has over 300 Nobel laureates in the United States. No other country has more than 150. [Source] Education: [The overwhelming majority of the world's top universities are in the United States] According to [this] education index, the United States ranks her 13th in overall education. The United States is by a wide margin the world leader in research spending. [Source] Culture: American popular culture has a great influence on the rest of the world. American movies, television and theater are loved all over the world. In [Charity Donations], the United States came in first. The United States ranks third on the Human Development Index. [Source] Military: While this may seem negative to some, the US military is a tremendous deterrent to large-scale conflicts. [This] Harvard professor says we are living in the most peaceful time in human history. I don't think we humans have evolved to be such a peaceful species. That would be pretty naive. Nuclear weapons and the threat that the world's most powerful nations would retaliate against needless aggression have prevented many conflicts from occurring in the first place. Needless to say, the United States subsidizes most Western countries' defense spending. we must? No, but if I didn't, I don't think the last 70 years would have been so peaceful. This is a proctology story from my experience, but I was particularly impressed. Last semester, I was taking a course in East Asian Politics in college, when suddenly a professor asked me who I thought was the greatest president in the history of the United States. This class will give you typical Lincoln, Washington, or FDR type answers. But our professor, an immigrant from South Korea, said he believed it was Harry Truman. President Truman's decision to help defend South Korea saved its people from the same dire fate as North Korea, for which he remains grateful. Summary: What strikes me most about all the US actions is the sheer scale. Providing such a high quality of life for so many people is truly unprecedented in human history. Are there any countries that serve a much smaller population a little better? Sure, but I don't think it's on the scale of what the US is doing. The only comparable population may be Japan. Some countries may be better than the US on a smaller scale, but I don't think any country can really claim to be better than the US as a whole. Can a single country claim to have had such a positive impact on nearly every aspect of life? I can't tell you the name. Side note: I'm not claiming that the United States is perfect or far from perfect. We have many shortcomings. But no other country can claim to have such an overall positive impact on its own people and the rest of the world. Also, I hope people don't vote blindly just because they don't agree. I was really looking forward to having a good discussion. : | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
The mass surveillance the NSA conducts (which it would never have admitted had it not been for whistleblower Snowden) is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of futuristic applications of this kind of ubiquitous and implicit citizen surveillance. . To make matters worse, thanks to social media applications such as Facebook and technologies such as smartphones (many of which we carry with us at all times and sleep within arm's reach), people are actively monitored by dystopian governments. It doesn't even have to be. They report their whereabouts and their activities are voluntary. As someone who remembers what life was like before this paradigm shift, I can't help but worry about the future and what this kind of surveillance will ultimately entail. Let's take a closer look at some of the things I'm talking about: - Snowden was vilified in the same way Goldstein was in 1984. With both Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein dead, America needs new faces for its enemies. He is the person chosen by the government. The "danger" he represents is being used as a justification for everything the government is doing now. "See?" they say. "We can't trust you. Anyone exposed to classified information risks wanting to spread it." For this reason, we cannot guide you. That's why we're watching over you. for your own benefit. – Covert surveillance of people without their knowledge using computer webcams or other computer programs. This level of computing technology will soon permeate all aspects of modern life. In the future, few people will be in a room without knowledge of some technology capable of this kind of surveillance. - Keylogging, remote access to your network. People can access every website you've ever visited, every purchase you've made, and every comment you've made in public online forums. If you are "in the starting lineup", congratulations. you are being watched - State under surveillance cameras. Take a walk around your neighborhood and check out a few grocery stores and intersections to see how many security cameras you can find. -The resemblance to the vast majority of American society and Orwell's his 1984 Prole is striking. The American public is generally uneducated (both about the actions of their own government and about the activities of other countries), ignorant despite the vast amount of information at their disposal, and generally too unrecognised by American leaders. making decisions for themselves who are considered irrational, ignorant and despised. This is the spirit that justifies the nanny state. The American people are considered good by their leader only in three ways: his unconditional support for the upper class, his patriotism, and his money. Anyone who refuses some or all of these tributes becomes an "enemy of the people" or a "traitor." But by and large, most Americans pay little attention to the world around them in their daily lives, which the people in power like. This makes it easier to operate and control. - Lies spread by government agencies are considered truth until proven to the contrary. "Secret" information allows authorities to lie to the public through inaction and often with the benefit of society. Sure, Americans may not want to watch videos like Collateral Murder, but do we have a moral obligation to acknowledge their existence? - There is no truly private form of communication unless you speak face-to-face. - Over the past decade, more and more people are being prosecuted for what they write or say, rather than what they actually do. This comes dangerously close to pursuing thoughtcrime. - A state of perpetual warfare with an inexorably and ever-changing enemy, and a state of tolerable terror and xenophobia for the populace. And even after a history of false flags, we cannot believe that this enemy is real, that it is always after us, and that imprisonment is the price we must pay for our safety. Expected. To this I say it's very easy to feel safe behind the fence of a cage. | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
Here in Israel, high schools teach "Tanakh" (the Hebrew word for the Bible, presumably the First Testament) and literature (short stories, songs, poems, novels, etc.). These are some of the required subjects along with English, Mathematics, History and Hebrew. I believe that literature and the Bible should not be in the same group of required courses, but should be entirely electives. It is clear why English, Hebrew (the country's primary language), history and mathematics are objectively important. Mathematics is an everyday subject. Children always argue that life doesn't need that, but on these four issues I disagree. Mathematics is very useful, even super long equations are useful. Because it facilitates thoughts, thought processes, and more. The biggest math you can get in high school has obvious advantages, aside from the fact that he can take almost anything in 5 "credits". English is also an unambiguous language, the language of the world. You cannot leave the country without English. Everyone in the world should have a basic knowledge of English. Hebrew is even more obvious, so I won't go into detail. Talk to you at the end. History, in my opinion, deserves a compulsory course because it is literally just a collection of facts that bring us to where we are today. It's just shit that happened before I got here. It's important. It comes up many times in everyday conversation. It is important that we all never stop walking away from history so that history does not repeat itself. In a nutshell, history is what happened. I think it's less important what to teach. And then there is literature and the Bible. Two subjects composed of pure fictional nonsense. Depending on your beliefs about the Bible, I think 95 people in Israel can agree that there was never a split of the sea or burning of bushes. And even if most people thought it happened, it's because public schools teach the Bible. We know we can't divide the oceans, it's a fact. So why are we taught that we can divide? That's as bad as teaching kids that climate change doesn't exist. That's a blatant lie. This shouldn't be a religious controversy, but no matter what you think about God, the sea won't split (if you understand that the sea split is just a bizarre biblical example that doesn't make sense. I'm happy). The division of the sea is wrong. It is taught as a fact. something has to change. It's 2015. Why are we teaching our children something we know is not true? It's literally just one big novel, the Bible. Analyzing it over the years is like taking a course in the Harry Potter series. You analyze nonsense. Yes, you may be familiar with this nonsense, but that doesn't change the fact that it's nonsense. It's crap, it's nothing. That said, he is irrelevant to all of 2015 and shouldn't waste anyone's time. Literature is the same for me, to be honest. Nonsense. fiction. none. I think the story has a moral, but other than that it's really silly. I compare it with history. I mean, literally compare to what unfolded on the ground under my feet before I got there. And literature is nothing but stupid poetry with "deceptive depth" or stupid fictional stories with nothing. And the amount of assumptions made is amazing. You've probably heard this before, but sometimes blue curtains are just blue curtains. You can't go on assuming that the author meant something you may or may not have intended, just to fit your story and understanding of this phrase you call poetry. That's the next part. What does it mean if someone can interpret a poem however they like? What can be taught? None. Nonsense. Some people like literature and the Bible, so it should be optional. Study if you like. But for most people who don't, it shouldn't be necessary. Please change my view! | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
I was in the middle of writing a paper on the current state of ethnic affairs in America and after doing a lot of research I came to a very unpleasant thought: that the current upswing of right wing orientation among young whites may stem partially or largely from talking points on these issues that are more aimed at instilling fervor than any form of comprehension. I believe that current news coverage of any racial issue is almost always geared towards exciting the consumer and thus avoids any issues that might lower the perception of racism in the white community. I believe that because it is socially and economically advantageous for them, some communities take advantage of this to ensure that dialogue on immigration is unlikely to flow into an area that covers less savory complications from their interests. This is most notably the case with immigration. For instance, mentioning that cultural changes make people uncomfortable and require acclimation is absolutely unheard of in the immigration debate, much less that allowing one ethnic group to change the makeup of a state by more than 40 (California) may actually make even non-racist whites unhappy. Unfortunately, I have never seen a prominent pro-Hispanic source have the courage to mention this. Many of the immigration movements and other ethnic rights movements, in particular, have done more to inflict social pressure or fear of being labeled racist than to actually promote dialogue on the issue. I feel it is based on He lists three main issues that weigh heavily on my mind but don't always let me know. I didn't list the details for the sake of flexibility, as I figured if someone wanted to focus on one of these distinct themes they could go into more detail. As for where he reads the news now, he usually reads HuffPost and Reuters first, then he goes to the LA Times, and Reddit for additional sources if that sounds interesting. I distrust Fox News the same way I distrust Salon. The issues that currently weigh heavily on my mind are: His MAS program in Arizona, from its original teachings to its attempted ban. It appears that the course was originally taught using highly and intentionally racist content. In the case of Trayvon Martin I wouldn't be shocked if racial prejudice played a role in Zimmerman's belief that Martin was a "thug," but I'd like to see the reaction of the African-American community to it. When you think about it, it seems quite irrelevant. The problem began with the avoidance of using redacted 911 calls, a baby photo instead of a photo showing Martin's actual appearance, and a photo of Zimmerman showing signs of injury. But the main reason this question is so harrowing today is that I can't remember a single member of the African American community speaking out about the incredible prejudices that led to the trial debacle. is not Southwestern Immigration I lived in Southern California for quite some time. I remember people telling Republicans in the 1980s that it was racist to believe that a small pardon would allow Mexicans to take over the country and enforce their own immigration laws. There was a lot going on there at the time. There was also a very funny SNL skit about it. The historical context and lack of understanding in today's discussion is evident in the inability to bring it up as it accuses whites of being immigrants. It is important to me that we are no longer interested in talking about a complete shift in demographics and how people view the shift in their communities, preferring instead to discuss race and justice. Hello CMV users! This is a footnote from the moderator. There are a few things to keep in mind. First, don't forget to [READ THE RULES]. If you find an incorrect comment, reporting it is more effective than simply ignoring it. Speaking of which, [downvoting doesn't change my mind]! If you're thinking of submitting a CMV yourself, check out the Popular Topics Wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to send us a message. Enjoy your CMV! | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
It is clear to me that the dark side of the force is stronger than the light side of the force. Remember that movie battle where a light side character supposedly defeats a dark side character? I believe it only happens a few times: 1.) Luke defeats Darth Vader in Episode VI 2.) Obi-Wan defeats Darth Maul in Episode I. 3.) Count Dooku retires from Yoda in Episode II. 4.) Anakin defeats Count Dooku in Episode III. 5.) Mace Windu defeats Darth Sidious in Episode III. 6.) Obi-Wan defeats Darth Vader in Episode III. In the former case, Luke was only able to defeat Vader after Vader succumbed to Darkseid-influenced rage. It could also be argued that Vader never intended to overthrow Luke, but that he and the Emperor were simply trying to make Luke submit to his wrath in order to join the Dark Side. In the second case, Darth Maul had just defeated Qui-Gon Jinn and was probably exhausted from the battle. Furthermore, here, too, we see the light side prevail only after Obi-Wan succumbs to anger and emotion at the sight of the death of his former mentor and mentor. In the fourth case, Dooku loses to Anakin only after Anakin gives in to anger. It has also been claimed that Dooku's defeat by Anakin was a ruse, with Dooku trying to see if he could turn Anakin to the Dark Side, much like Vader did to Luke in episode six. This idea is supported by several facts. Dooku easily defeated Obi-Wan in both fights, and Obi-Wan later defeated Anakin in a one-on-one match. Anakin was easily defeated in the last battle between Anakin and Dooku. And there was joy on Sidious' face as he watched Anakin defeat and eventually kill Dooku. In the fifth Incident, Darth Sidious emasculated three Jedi with relative ease before finally succumbing to Windu after a lengthy struggle. While Sidious had a career in politics and was probably not used to lightsaber duels, Mace Windu is considered one of the best, if not the best, swordsmen in the entire Jedi Order. rice field. It could be argued that Sidious deliberately engineered and lost this entire chain of events in order to lure Anakin to the dark side. This leaves him with only two pure wins for the light side in head-to-head matches. Yoda's victory over Dooku and Obi-Wan's victory over Vader. In both cases, the Sith fought much more experienced Jedi. Finally, let's look at some more facts. Sidious defeats Yoda in a head-to-head confrontation between the Grand Master of the Jedi Order and the Sith Master. Never think that no group consisting of more than three Jedi can defeat his entire order. And this doesn't even take into account the Sith power subcanons. For example, Darth Plagueis could create life from the Force itself, and Darth Sidious could create a wormhole that could destroy entire planets. As far as I know, no Jedi has achieved such a feat. That is, when the Jedi lost most of their battles with the Sith, there was not a single Force stallion who could reliably defeat the Sith, and the Jedi Grand Master was defeated by the Sith while the Sith were accomplishing great deeds. When these were orders of magnitude better than anything else. The Jedi could do it. How can you deny that the Sith were clearly more powerful? Let me know Hello CMV users! This is a footnote from the moderator. There are a few things to keep in mind. First, don't forget to [READ THE RULES]. If you find an incorrect comment, reporting it is more effective than rejecting it. Speaking of which, [downvoting doesn't change my mind]! If you're thinking of submitting a CMV yourself, check out the Popular Topics Wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to send us a message. Enjoy your CMV! | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
Every day there is new news about disgusting children committing violent crimes. Boys aged 13 to 15 were filmed repeatedly attacking a mentally disturbed man. A Texas boy drives a truck drunk and rams into people on the side of the road, killing many. (child with flu). Boys aged 13 to 16 pushed autistic children over bridge girders or threw stones at them to knock them over or paralyze them. Teenage bastards playing a knockout game. The 15- and 17-year-old animals tricked a 12-year-old girl into stealing her bicycle, then sexually assaulted her, strangled her, and dumped her body in a neighborhood trash can. again and again. And each of them gets (or will have) a commuted listvinta sentence, if any. It's time to end this madness. Reddit always disbelieves stories that teens are smarter than they think. These consent laws should be lowered because children know what they are doing. If so, these little monsters know what they're doing and should be held accountable for the crimes they've committed. The time has come for them to be accused of violent crimes as adults. murder. attack. rape. vehicle murder. gang violence. Armed robbery. Hate sin Whatever suits you. The time has come for sentences to also reflect crime. If a 15-year-old kills a person and the adult sentence is 20 years, he will be detained in a juvenile detention center for 3 years until the age of 18, and then transferred to prison for 17 years. I don't care where you come from the way you were raised. Neither your mother's problem nor your father. I am not interested in their racial struggles, economic problems, peer pressure, etc. It's nothing compared to the crimes they commit against others. If they are severely scarred by the difficulties of life and growth, they are too scarred to go out into society. I don't care about your sanity. If they are legally retarded (or their lawyers say they need to be kicked out), they are violent, uncontrollable, and mentally unfit to be part of the citizenry. is. They can remain confined where they are guaranteed to obtain and take drugs without harming others. I don't even care about the economic side of the taxpayer. I don't mind at all if my tax dollars are used to effectively lock these savage savages in prison where they can only hurt, rape and kill each other. Some of you may be wondering, "What if the bully finally puts up and shoots the bully?" He can attempt legal self-defense if he wants, but I would say he must nonetheless. He will be tried as an adult. There are many other children who have escaped bullying without committing murder. I chose his 10 year old because that is any age before puberty. To be honest, I would love to try it from the age of 8, just like adults. I can honestly say that even an 8-year-old doesn't know that killing people is wrong, so I assure you that a 10-year-old does. So does it sound cold? Innocent? good. I apologize for that. It feels like heartbroken Molly's indulgence, all-inclusive approach to parenting, and lack of discipline in her children are responsible for a wave of runaway, mean, demanding, spiteful and ruthless children. . Hello CMV users! This is a footnote from the moderator. There are a few things to keep in mind. First, don't forget to [READ THE RULES]. If you find an incorrect comment, reporting it is more effective than rejecting it. Speaking of which, [downvoting doesn't change my mind]! If you're thinking of submitting a CMV yourself, check out the Popular Topics Wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to send us a message. Enjoy your CMV! | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
Playing games without items is the norm in the competitive Smash Bros. community. This is stupid for many reasons. 1. This makes the game less fun. Want to play Mario Kart without items? Damn this makes the game lose tension and variety. Same goes for smash. In fact, there was a post on rnintendo or rwiiu last week asking if there would be a Mario Kart battle scene, and most of the responses were "only if items are removed". where's the fun If you want to play Mario Kart without items, play another fucking racing game, if you want to play Smash Bros. without items, play another fucking fighting game. EDIT: This part of my view has changed. 2. It limits the intended purpose of the game. Why remove a feature from the game that you really want to use? It makes the game what it isn't. It's like ordering a fancy pizza consciously and choosing all the ingredients. Totally pointless and totally disrespectful to the developers (I admit the last part is a bit vague, but well... they've been working on fitting it into the game as a major feature , and that constitutes a good thing) participate in their creative work. It would be a shame to ignore that aspect. EDIT: This part of my view has also changed. 3. Items don't just interfere with the competitive aspect of the game. They use their limitations as obstacles to contribute. That's the big thing. This is why Competitive Smash players omit items entirely: "The randomness makes the game less competitive." I think for good reason that the randomness of item types and placement diminishes the focus on player abilities, but he says two things about it: 3A. No, this is not about player skill. Don't you think that the person who receives it must use it properly? Can you still avoid him? Also, even if the item doesn't spawn right next to the player, they still have to rush to it before others or choose not to get it at all. Using items here makes the game more competitive. You should really consider them. I think the general argument for items is something like, "Well, winning only with items sucks." Have you ever wondered if you're no good because you can't win unless you're knocked out? My point here is that items add a little element of randomness, but more than make up for it with some discrete aspects of player skill. 3B. Even if the game has a random side to it... so what? It's not a coin toss or lottery that relies solely on luck. It depends on the type of items and where they are located. Adding luck is both fun and a challenge. Luck and competition are not mutually exclusive. Even if the object is turned off. Even for them it is impossible. There is always the possibility that a good player will make a stupid and fatal mistake, or a mistake during the game will lead to an unfair victory. I understand wanting to reduce the randomness factor, but removing items takes the fun out of the competition. At the very least, there should be another mainstream smash tournament that saves items. Hello CMV users! This is a footnote from the moderator. There are a few things to keep in mind. First, don't forget to [READ THE RULES]. If you find an incorrect comment, reporting it is more effective than rejecting it. Speaking of which, [downvoting doesn't change my mind]! If you're thinking of submitting a CMV yourself, check out the Popular Topics Wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to send us a message. Enjoy your CMV! | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
Disclaimer: This post will contain references to My Little Pony and Bronnie fandoms, as this is the only fandom I've read fanfiction on (excluding crossovers). If references to these cause rabies-like symptoms, please let me know [here] or [here]. I think the title pretty much sums up my position. Fanfiction is often considered inferior to the "original work". The word "fan fiction" also has a bad connotation. I, however, believe that fan fiction is just as valuable as any original work and that often good stories are dismissedignored because they are "merely fan fiction." Now, to save some time, i will give some arguments against fan fiction that i can think of and will explain why i don't think they are valid: Fanfic's have poor quality. I'll admit there's a lot of bad fanfic, but i would like to remind people that there also a lot of truly horrible original works. Remember [Sturgeon's law] (tvtropes link, so beware): "90 of everything is crud." Basically, there are a lot of shitty fanfic's, but i know for a fact that there are also a lot of great fanfic's. Those that agree with me here can skip the bulletin points. For those that won't believe me i have some example's: [Vinyl and Octavia: University Days] : O god it's a ship fic, right? Or rather, there is even an [explicit additional chapter]. That's terrible, right? Well, yes, no. In fact, this is a beautiful story about the issues same-sex couples face and the importance of being independent from their parents. [Fallout: Equestria]: Crossover. don't you hate them? Stealing one piece wasn't enough, this person had to steal multiple pieces. It's basically an epic story about an idealistic protagonist who confronts evil in a world he gave up long ago and faces the consequences. The good old heartstrings will play well. [My Little Dashie]: Okay, at least self-inserted fanfiction is bad by definition, right? But what if, for whatever reason, there were more bad fanfictions than bad originals? However, that doesn't justify thinking that all fanfiction is bad. Most reasonable people don't believe all black people are criminals just because they are statistically more likely to end up in jail. Fanfiction is harmful to the original author. I really don't understand how this works. I don't think fanfiction can do any harm to the original authors. I don't think anyone thinks, "Once I read that fanfiction, I don't need to read it and check the source material." I think fanfiction tends to backfire. Regarding the original work. Example: He started watching MLP after I read Better Life Through Science and Pony. I don't think it detracts from the original. The fact that we have [Clopfics] (basically Rule 34 of Pony) doesn't make MLP any less fun. i know they exist. I have never read it. My life is barely affected by their presence. You could say it's similar to the Star Wars prequels in that the fanfiction makes you think differently than the original, but no one is forced to read this fanfiction. This is not canon, so reading this fanfiction is entirely your own choice. If you read ship novels and now you can't see these two characters the same, why did you read them? Fan fiction is by definition inferior because it is not original. increase. I don't understand this argument at all. Fanfiction has an original plot and may feature original locations and characters. What is the problem? No work is born out of nothing. [All works are borrowed from previous works]. The only difference is that in fanfiction there is more borrowing and the borrowing is more obvious. This is my position. However, if presented with a compelling argument, I will gladly use his CMV. EDIT: Thanks for the discussion guys! I need to sleep, but I'll be back in the morning. | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
Your system is broken. There is no question of this truth. Every day we see mounting evidence of corruption, malfeasance, incompetence and abuse of power in our justice system. We get angry, we complain, we rally in protest, we bow our heads in grief and shame, but nothing changes. We elect politicians who promise to improve the situation, but nothing changes. How can we, the people, regain the power to make our country a better place to live in? I believe the best approach is for all members of the judicial system to be directly elected by the people. Police, prosecutors, judges. all of them. No more political appointments or purely bureaucratic hiring practices that make it impossible for end-users to decide for themselves who will provide necessary and critical services. Imagine if a police officer charged with brutality (and videotaped!) had to run for re-election. That shit won't fly for a second. If prosecutors had to defend their decision to take an elderly woman to court in a foreclosure proceeding for the purpose of a home foreclosure simply because her grandson was trading marijuana, we would take her to court. would choose to keep it in a position of power. If judges have to justify their decisions claiming mass polluters who are not responsible for chemically contaminated communities, we allow them to remain on the jury. I wonder? One might say that this is totally unrealistic and therefore impossible to make such a system work. it may be true. It may actually be just too much trouble. Perhaps the most practical method available is for the system itself to determine hiring requirements and make selections based on those criteria, as is done today. If so, we the public still need a "recall" or "no-confidence" process that can directly remove from public office those officials who do not meet official standards of acceptable competence and appropriate behavior in society. The public service administration has not fulfilled its mandate. If the public does not support a particular person in a particular position, that person should be removed from a position of power over the people. This should remain a separate process from criminal prosecution and civil damages for wrongdoing and abuse of power. What do you think, reddit? Is this the best possible solution? Any better ideas? EDIT: Why would you do this? What would it do? So if you videotape a police officer harassing a man in the most heinous way, the police officer will start killing the man in the middle of a terrible arrest for no good reason, followed by an "internal review". acquits him of his wrongdoing. Should be acquitted.” Shouldn't the public have the final say as to whether they want to risk similar treatment from that person? Watching these videos of blatantly brutal misconduct, I have a strong urge to carry a gun so that I can shoot this cop first, even if it means my death or imprisonment. It is I prefer non-violent options to remove bad cops when they can be adequately identified and the legal system itself cannot hold its members accountable for their actions. rBadCopNoDonut Check out the link above for blatant and serious violations of civil liberties and public trust (including many outright murders) that go unpunished and prosecuted despite apparently terrible video evidence. Be aware of all incidents. This kind of righteous farce must not continue. Something has to give way. My ideas may not be the best, but this discussion is an important part of the process. Some claim that they have already elected officials for this administrative function. The problem is that we believe elected state and federal representatives have a positive impact on the bureaucracy, even though it is the bureaucracy that ultimately corrupts the bureaucracy. . The bureaucracy is too large for such a small group to micromanage. A better solution would allow the engagement part of this bureaucracy to have more direct influence, and the public itself to be more actively involved in directly selecting or rejecting mid-level and front-line officials. It is to be. | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
Many anarch libertarians argue that centralizing power (and the legal authority to exercise that power) in the hands of a few (e.g. "bureaucrats") is far more dangerous than what corporations do. is. I disagree. Governments, after all, are known entities that must balance interests between the welfare and well-being of their citizens and the strengthening of their own power. If groups of parliamentarians take bribes to cooperate with companies, it is their responsibility and they should be punished. Governments are designed that way, or should be. Sure governments can do terrible things, but there are checks and balances that are ultimately in the hands of the people, whether they are willing to exercise them or not. Education and civic engagement are the answers to stopping government abuses and combating government corruption through private gain. If you have a brain tumor, go to a surgeon to have the bad part removed. It does not cut off the head. Many others seem to forget that private interests, even more than governments, are completely out of control. They say things like “corporations are clearly not good,” but they let their ideas go unchecked on the airwaves, and they happily pretend that private interests can do no harm without government intervention. we wake up Private gain has only one motive, and that is self-improvement. That's all companies have to deal with, and that's all companies have to deal with. It's natural and that's what they're for. The services they provide are ultimately for their own benefit above all else. Frankly, they care about money, but at the end of the day, that's fine. The problem, however, is that without government, unscrupulous or simply ignorant corporations, whether dealing with chemicals that pollute aquifers or construction companies that use asbestos to build walls, make money at the expense of the people. You can't stop doing it at all. The free market does not prevent corporations from harming the public. It may (but not always) ultimately lead to retaliation and bankruptcy, but it doesn't prevent it from happening in the first place. Court settlements do not restore lost loved ones or repair damage caused by birth defects or cancer. "Poisoning your customers hurts your business" is wishful thinking. Tobacco companies profited from poisoning their customers for decades until their products were found to be addictive and dangerous, but more importantly, tobacco companies knew and hid it. And we know things like this happen. American history is filled with examples of how corporations are stupid in their pursuit of profit, or how ignorant we are in our desire for new, shiny, painted toys. The people have one defense, and it is the people themselves who are amassed and used by what we call the "government" to gather their power and resources for impartial oversight for the greater good. . Unlike a true dictatorship, our government is not a giant octopus flying over us with a million guns at its head. They are people, people elected by other peoples and empowered to do things in our interests. Of course there will be corruption, and of course there will be debates about what our "best interests" are. The real tragedy of the entire NSA is that even before 9/11, many Americans are claiming such invasive espionage, whether they speak up or not. I am aware of this and would like to change the government to the point where it is compelled to reflect the will of those who oppose it. I don't blindly believe in government. We know our government is flawed and we want to fix it. Perfection should not be the enemy of good, and any system should be able to fix itself. TL;DR: Opponents of government regulation are so fixated on the government's fear of tyrannosaurs that they neglect the far more stealthy and agile raptors without a tyrannosaurus to keep them down. Otherwise, we will simply fail. It's just as hard on the go. I would like a CMV if possible, thank you. | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
I haven't really thought this out heavily, but I'll do my best to make a proper case for myself, and I actually would like to see it from another's perspective. So here goes: Having bought a game on one platform, it's not immoral to pirate the same game on another platform. I'm not even really talking legally (though feel free to inform me), but wether I am negatively influencencing the "victim" company (s) with this. This of course excludes remakes, GOTY editions and other versions that add (substantially) to the game, assuming you own the vanilla version. This does not include "better graphics on PC" or "Keyboardmouse support."By buying the game on one platform I have compensated the developer fully for all the work gone into making it, buying another version that adds nothing to the previously bought version is just paying twice the price for one product, solely because the rivalery of companies (Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo) prevents cross-buy. Expanding on my personal buying behaviour, 90 percent of the time I wouldn't have re-bought the game anyway, and am doing it purely for convenience (bought on Xbox, torrenting on laptop so I can play it when I'm gone too) so the developerconsole-company won't make a loss on my illigal copy, and the other 10 of the time I might be interested in rebuying a game bought on console for PC for, say, the mods (which are fully made by people outside the company, and do so for no profit), and I still might just have enjoyed the game enough to justify a rebuy if the price is right (i.e. I enjoyed the first Fable game greatly on Xbox, and bought Fable: TLC in a Steam sale for 3 so I could play it again with mouse keyboard and in widescreen. This port technically has some added content but is also the only version available on PC, I wasn't interested in the extra content and could have done without would I have had the option. Therefore, I wouldn't have felt guilty about torrenting it but at that price I have no issue considering the fun and time I put into it already.) You could argue that in theory, I could buy a console that a company has been selling at a loss in hopes of earning this back in sold games, and pirate every single game on it as I already own them on another gaming machine, therfore have the console company make a loss on me. I think that's a risk you take when you're selling your machine at a loss, and if that business model doesn't work for you, change it. Of course the odds of someone doing specifically this are very, very low, and is but a minor dent in the tenhundred thousands or even millions of consumers raking in the profits for these companies. I wouldn't do them any more harm than someone gathering dust in their basement after buying their only game console. I have a perfect gaming laptop, so not to mention the fact that if I did, I wouldn't buy their gaming console anyway. As the name suggests, it's not for a proprietary product exclusive to this console. Furthermore, when a game is pirated on the PC, the intermediary "machine developer" is completely eliminated and the "loss" goes directly to the game developer. I think it's pretty much the same. I came up with this on the fly and read it several times, but there may be some gaps. Of course you are welcome to use them. Also, sorry if the question has been asked before. I did a quick search before posting, but didn't find anything. Perhaps my discussion will lead to a different approach to this case. Hello CMV users! This is a footnote from the moderator. There are a few things to keep in mind. First, don't forget to [READ THE RULES]. If you find an incorrect comment, reporting it is more effective than rejecting it. Speaking of which, [downvoting doesn't change my mind]! If you're thinking of submitting a CMV yourself, check out the Popular Topics Wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to send us a message. Enjoy your CMV! | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
To paraphrase the title, I believe that when an egg is fertilized and reaches the uterine wall, it is human. I would also like to note that I am not arguing whether abortion should not be legal, I am merely stating when I believe human life begins. Are human fetuses alive? According to [Encyclopædia Britannica], life is "a material complex or individual characterized by the ability to perform specific functional activities, including metabolism, growth, reproduction, and some form of reactivity and adaptation." After conception, the human fetus exhibits all these. feature. The fertilized human embryo carries out metabolic processes, grows and develops, maintains homeostasis in response to stimuli, and contains genetic potential for reproduction. Although this early stage of development is infertile, so are 4-year-old boys. What is important is that it is fertile, or more precisely, belongs to a genus that can reproduce as a whole, since not all individual organisms are fertile. All living things get their energy from the environment. And for some organisms, that environment is another organism. This is a temporary state until the fetus transitions to the next stage of its life cycle, infancy. The embryo or fetus receives no "help" in absorbing and processing energy. It does not simply remain passive while being actively powered by an external source. In its own power, it collects energy from the environment and processes it to actively work and do so to grow and develop. The womb is not a factory that actively assembles new organisms from passive parts. It is a nurturing environment in which new organisms actively reproduce and whose cells specialize in growth and development. Fetal fertility is also independent of the mother. It exists as a series of codes in the genes of the embryo. After all, the fertilized embryo responds to stimuli as an independent, fully functioning organism without any "help" from the mother. Therefore, through an objective and scientific definition of what life is, it is clear that it lives. what kind of life is this? alive vs. Human It is human life. It's not plant life. Not chicken embryos. It's a human fetus. A fertilized human fetus has unique genetic characteristics that differ from its parents. This clearly indicates that it is not an extra mass of tissue from the mother. The genetic material within each cell of the developing embryo has a unique identity distinct from its mother. Fertilized embryos are not only independent and unique, they are ontologically no different from human infants, adolescents and adults. Nothing is added to or taken from the fetus (no different from a human being) except food and waste. At no point after conception does the embryo undergo fundamental ontological changes. It grows and develops just like a toddler or her 13-year-old girl grows and develops. Therefore, it is wrong to say, "It's not a human being, it's a fetus." It's the same as saying "not human, infant" or "not human, baby". Category error. The correct response to these allegations is, "It's definitely a fetus, it's definitely an infant, and it's definitely an adolescent." Human fetuses, human infants, and human adolescents. ”These are just stages of development in the human life cycle. A human being begins as a fetus, becomes a fetus, is born as an infant, grows into a child, grows into an adolescent, grows into an adult, and finally dies. Scientifically and philosophically, there is no good reason to believe that humans are created at birth because nothing is created at birth. The fetus is not completely new or different, just changing places at birth, changing the way it eats and excretes waste. Life begins at conception and goes through all stages until death. From the moment of conception, the fetus is human. CMV | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
First, I would like to give my take on homosexuality and the debate surrounding it, as the discussion will be based on the transgender community, not the gay community. While there are many very small groups working to suppress gay rights, it is clear that the larger groups are religious, especially Christianity. Do you think gays should have the right to marry in church? Of course not! Why would they want to marry under a god they hate? Do you think heterosexual couples should be able to marry in court to get the socio-political rights they have? Phew! And humble Christians should believe it too. As the Bible says, "Give to God what is God's, and to Caesar what is Caesar's." To the Caesar (Governing Society), two people who consented to each other devoted their right to support each other until death finally parted them. However, if only state marriages are allowed, allowing same-sex marriage would not do much harm to the Christian marriage system. There is no harm in allowing gay marriage, so there should be no legal restrictions on marriage between two gay people. Some people argue that if gays are recognized as gays, everyone will become gays, but I don't even intend to accept that. There are also some differences in the transgender community, who are similarly seeking rights. I understand that sometimes it happens that individuals like XXY really believe that. I believe that genetically and evolutionarily there are only one or two genders in a species, but the human species has two. Some have realized that many of the traits attributed to both sexes are completely false, largely considering their patriarchal history, and have been arbitrarily constructed by male-dominated societies for thousands of years. I believe that building a transgender society will further accentuate these gender differences. When we identify as male or female, we are really only identifying with patriarchal defined male or female characteristics. You don't call a tomboy a man, do you? Instead, as feminists (and equality advocates) have demanded for centuries, these traits distinguish the male gender from the male and female genders, which at best have reproductive roles. I agree that it should be reduced to the claim of reduction. Cells are more mobile and female germ cells are more nutrient-rich. That said, women and men alike can and should navigate the processes of modern life. Social traits don't belong to gender, they should belong to individuals who are not male because Pete is male and Pete is male because Pete is male. Transgender movements and communities are only highlighting these gender roles at a time when equality advocates are striving to nullify these roles in order to create a less gender-discriminatory society. I believe. TL;DR Gays don't hurt anyone for being gay. And most importantly, they do not undermine the Christian view of marriage by marrying in court. The transgender community fosters gender hysteria and confusion while emphasizing gender roles that ultimately undermine gender equality. Hello CMV users! This is a footnote from the moderator. There are a few things to keep in mind. First, don't forget to [READ THE RULES]. If you find an incorrect comment, reporting it is more effective than simply ignoring it. Speaking of which, [downvoting doesn't change my mind]! If you're thinking of submitting a CMV yourself, check out the Popular Topics Wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to send us a message. Enjoy your CMV! | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
I thought this had been discussed before, but my searches only found individual posts about rap music and minstrelsy. I couldn't find anything about their similarities. First let me say that I don't hate rap music like most people do. If rap music is well constructed, the lyrics are smart, and it relates to things that are universal to the human condition, I would enjoy it. I like Gimme the Loot by Notorious BIG, If I Die 2nite by Tupac Shakur, and 4th Chamber by Wu-Tang Clan. Listening to these songs I find myself keeping secrets and I would be ashamed if anyone who knew me personally knew I had heard these songs. Some songs I actually enjoy. I don't know why I'm ashamed to admit it. Probably because of the inherent racism I can't shake off even though I don't even believe in racial distinctions. I also want to say that, as is often the case in rap music, minstrelsy is misunderstood and dismissed without thought, and many of the reasons for dismissal are wrong. Minstrelsy, of course, is very problematic, but it wasn't necessarily meant to be racist, and his portrayal of black language was actually very similar to black slang at the time, but it was. is discussed in Behind the Burnt Cork Mask, but I don't have the book at hand so I can't quote it. The media wasn't necessarily meant to be racist, but in a racist society, it was justifiably very racist. You have commercialized this black idiom, even if you feel it is an appreciation. It was also very misogynistic. Rap music also shares these traits and experienced a resurgence shortly after the bard's eventual demise. Rap music like minstrelgy, even when performed by black rappers, is a diversion rather than a true expression of black idioms because of the large number of black bards. It exaggerates the characteristics of the Black idiom it points to and exacerbates the class and racial divisions that bring so much suffering. EDIT: White rappers may not wear burnt cork, but in many ways they wear black outfits. It's just as flashy and aggressive in many ways, just not seen as such yet. Of course, I'm not in the camp that argues that if we don't talk about race, racism will be destroyed. This view simply ignores the structural inequalities that still exist in relation to race. I think rap music can speak constructively about race, but not in the commercial mainstream. My taste in music leans towards minstrel songs, and I love things like Stephen Foster and the music of the black men he imitates. Intellectually, however, I prefer rap music, as it seems to stem from rational cultural anger rather than cultural coping. Nevertheless, this outrage is not reasonably discussed. A song titled "My President Is Black, My Lamborghini Is Blue" was released to commemorate Obama's election, but it wasn't meant to be satirical, it was meant to affect real emotions. was. That this is seen as a bad example for rap music, and that, as is the case with minstrelsy, if the rap community had a dedicated flock of real artists, it could produce far less problematic and better work. High, I know very well. But that doesn't stop the commercial mainstream of this medium from being a highly problematic satirical portrayal of black America, just like the bard. Please change your mind. I'd like to think America's most popular music genre isn't some giant chimera of institutionalized racism. Hello CMV users! This is a footnote from the moderator. There are a few things to keep in mind. First, don't forget to [READ THE RULES]. If you find an incorrect comment, reporting it is more effective than rejecting it. Speaking of which, [downvoting doesn't change my mind]! If you're thinking of submitting a CMV yourself, check out the Popular Topics Wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to send us a message. Enjoy your CMV! | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
If you look at the history of the Democratic Party, you will quickly see that they have been the true oppressors of all but white men. The Democrats fought to abolish slavery until the very end of the Civil War, forming the KKK (Robert Byrd was a full member and the longest-serving senator in history). Also, liberals are allowed to be racist, so racial slurs were used on television with no consequences. ) ended Reconstruction in order to intimidate black people into dissuading them from voting. They passed Jim Crow laws and fought against women's suffrage. During the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, when it became clear that blatant racism was no longer of interest to the American public, Democrats decided to "modernize." So they planned to make it look as if racism was gone, when in fact they wanted to keep black people chained to the metaphorical plantations they always wanted. When Lyndon Johnson advocated welfare policies, they did so, but they went unnoticed when he said he would "keep the black democratic vote for 200 years." And of course, welfare is a form of slavery, as free food, housing, and medical care can be obtained in exchange for undying loyalty. After all, Johnson was correct in his assumption that welfare would enable minorities to vote democratically, and minorities enjoy undying support from the black community to this day. there is Welfare helps the poor move up the social ladder faster, and one day everyone on welfare will be wealthy, so Democrats need to focus on their welfare. Some may think so. Coming from a welfare family, I can say that's not true. If you're on welfare, you can't find a job without losing your benefits, and you have little or no motivation to even try. Social Security tends to pay more than minimum wage if you use your kids to earn more minimum wage (my mom did). Since my mother applied for welfare, she hasn't worked a single day, and she probably won't. The work ethic she had before she started receiving her benefits was long gone, and now, at nearly 60, I don't expect it to change. Essentially, this leads to a vicious circle of poverty under the pretext of "helping" the poor. It's like someone broke your leg, gave you crutches, and said, "Look? As if that wasn't aggressive enough, the Democratic rhetoric against minorities is even worse. They almost always tell them that they are "victims of the oppressive majority" and that the color of their skin leaves them helpless. Of course, this is also a ridiculous and completely outdated claim. Because it's clear that your race is no longer the barrier to success that it once was. We have people of all ethnic backgrounds, all of whom have held high positions in public office and achieved great success in the business world. These people weren't fooled by the rhetoric because they knew it was bullshit, and they ended up being so inhuman that they actually believed they were inferior because of the color of their skin. It didn't even become a target. In other words, even if they fought to keep them in chains, and still did whatever it took to keep them from getting richer than McDonald's employees, without the Democrats they would be nothing. It wouldn't have helped. That's why Democrats hate people who have achieved even a little success in the free market world, and use phrases like "You didn't make this!" to demonize people who don't depend on government. I am doing my best. After all, there is no reason for successful people to vote Democrats, and they know it, so the emphasis is on appealing to keep the poor in poverty. To me, this is the most insidious, racist and downright abusive form of politics ever. This is essentially voter bribery and should be illegal. That's my sworn word. CMV。 | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
This CMV [refers to a cyclist] wearing spandex lycra and riding a super expensive road bike (Dutch) and/or a cyclist who: : consideration for slow drivers who ride side by side uphill, [ignore red lights], are arrogant, or show little vanity (e.g. bike lanes). I think there are some issues with this kind of cyclist. It creates an artificial entry barrier. In places like Amsterdam and Denmark, all you need to ride a bike is... [a bike]. But U.S. motorists see themselves driving bikes with multiple functions. A minority of people with thousands of dollars worth of bicycles and silly clothes who think, "I wouldn't do that!", seem to have to buy expensive equipment to ride a bike even for the slightest errand. . It's also less visually useful. Road bikes don't have space for backpacks, clothes, groceries, baskets, etc. This makes it impractical for commuting purposes, although most drivers think so. So the car driver thinks, "I can't commute by bike because my office doesn't have a shower." I know I should look into how to commute in normal clothes (i.e. slow down), but... people on road bikes ride too fast. I know they're probably training for triathlons or something, but I would have the same problem if racers used roads and highways for race training. Most road cyclists make slow commuters feel unwelcome on the road and want to get back to driving rather than just biking to work. In most US cities, being on a bike and being afraid to drive at the same time is already intolerable. Worse is worse when a super-fast road cyclist passes you on the bike path without warning or bell. Speaking of speeding, I live near a bike path and have never seen a bike ring a bell or slow down at a corner. They usually just yell that I didn't leave the road early enough, which is ridiculous. It may be regional, but still. This is not a race track. It is a winding forest road that is used by everyone from children to the elderly. Another side effect is that riding a bike that fast is a sport that only young and healthy people can practice, and [those who don't fit that mold] don't see cycling as something they can do. It is (in fact it is). . . Many road cyclists wear helmets because of the speed, but most people don't wear helmets while cycling. This kind of stigma means that people are less likely to ride a bike and therefore choose the less safe alternative of driving. In summary, I think the safest thing for cyclists is to put more bikes on the road and ride together. However, I now think of road cyclists as the group of people who make cycling a practice for the few. For cycling to become more popular in the United States, it must be more convenient, more open to people of all ages, shapes and sizes, and have the lowest possible barriers to entry. PS: Unfortunately, road cyclists now appear to be the majority of cyclists that most motorists in the US come into contact with, so I still feel like I have a bad image of commuters. I feel We understand that these types of cyclists are not the only reason why there are so few motorized bicycles, but to address the practical reasons, there is a need to increase the number of cyclists. I still feel their image is harmful. Hello CMV users! This is a footnote from the moderator. There are a few things to keep in mind. First, don't forget to [READ THE RULES]. If you find an incorrect comment, reporting it is more effective than rejecting it. Speaking of which, [downvoting doesn't change my mind]! If you're thinking of submitting a CMV yourself, check out the Popular Topics Wiki first. Questions or concerns? Feel free to send us a message. Enjoy your CMV! | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
Before you vote me down, listen to me and come up with an appropriately worded comment about CMV. I hope this continues to be a civil debate without silencing people with denial. I will try to explain my opinion. Warning: It's a long story ahead. I saw Breaking Bad for the first time. I've never been interested in TV shows because they tend to take longer and appeal to a wider audience (in my opinion), but everyone told me to watch it, so I did. . This show definitely has some highlights. Bryan Cranston, Aaron Paul and Giancarlo Esposito all gave great performances. In my opinion the show wouldn't have been as successful without them. Gus' story arc, in my opinion, is the highlight of the series, with Gus' backstory and overall awesomeness. However, the other characters are irrelevant and don't have much to offer. There's a policeman who identifies Heisenberg from the comfort of a toilet, and his wife. So does Walter's son. Skyler is a hypocrite and exists only to morally judge others. The other villains are forgettable, and Psycho, who appears towards the end of the series, is a convenient plot device to destroy Jesse's romantic feelings and has no interesting traits. He is completely one dimensional. Ultimately, the series felt like an action movie with some interesting characters and pretty good cinematography, but nothing overwhelming. I still love this show and I can understand why people love it, but if this ranks among the best TV shows of all time, I question the quality of the TV show. As for Game of Thrones, I haven't read the books, nor will I, unless they are significantly better than the series. I try to keep my cool, but I really despise this show. I feel the same way about Attack on Titan (yes, I hate it too): an interesting setting, terrible characters and pacing, and a lot of cheapness. shock. worth. The show is always looking for the most shocking results to increase the shock value. People praise this show for being unpredictable and indiscriminately killing everyone. But everyone who dies is a complete fool, and their death feels compelling to forbid the story from happening. When a Stark man finds out that the King's wife is having an incestuous relationship and suspects she is trying to kill her child, the man who loves his wife tells him not to trust him and gives his daughter was told by those who wanted him dead, and he claimed to just play the "Iron Throne" without thinking maybe, maybe, maybe, that he might be arrested and killed. They are just there. He could single-handedly clean up corruption in the South, or at least try to do so while others are trying to kill him, but we can't do that, can we? The story is allowed to progress and has nowhere to go. If his death was at least plausible, so be it. And then there's the dragon girl who marries someone she doesn't love, gets raped, and then just falls in love with him. Dafuq, maybe Stockholm Syndrome? And by the end of Season 3, the other Starks die for being complete fools. If you promised to marry the daughter of a powerful ally, it would certainly be wise to marry another woman, Einstein! After that, I quit the series. It's like a melodrama, with lots of violence and sex and the characters that are considered "gray" are just flat, except for the midgets (I don't even remember the names of these people) and maybe the little tomboys No interesting developments Stark has a girl and Stark is on the night watch. There's a woman who incests with her handsome brother, a king who loves to drink, eat and have sex, a naive stupid king, a dragon girl with Stockholm syndrome who becomes a villain because of a dragon, and a psychopathic teenage king. . Like the quiet guy who hasn't died in three seasons, or the man whose penis took control of his head and sentenced his family to death. This is considered good television. If this is the best TV can offer, I don't want to bother watching it anymore. Please try CMV. | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
As the title suggests, I believe that President Obama (and everyone directly involved) should be impeached by Congress, then impeached, and (at least) tried in civil court on murder charges for the murder of US citizens in drone attacks abroad. I think that. It has long been known that the Obama administration has used drones to kill specific targets abroad, including Americans among those killed. People don't discuss it anymore and the government doesn't comment on it. The government has now admitted that the drone strike killed four Americans, three of whom were not targeted. Source: My main argument is based on reading the Constitution. A constitution is a contract between the government and the people. I find the following excerpts to be particularly important in this case (listed in order of applicability, with emphasis added): Amendment XIV, Section 1, Paragraph 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Amendment V: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Amendment VI: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence [sic]. Article III, Section 2, Paragraph 3: The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed. Article 2, Section IV: The President, Vice President, and all civilian officers of the United States shall be removed from office upon indictment and conviction of treason, bribery, or other serious felonies and misdemeanors. and (Source online:) In my understanding of the Constitution, all 4 of his 3 deaths were illegitimate. The murder of Anwar al-Aulaqi was clearly premeditated and was not brought to justice and should be classified as a first-degree murder, therefore the killing does not qualify as a death sentence. The assassination of al-Aulakki may be justified by the fact that he was an irresistible enemy combatant. However, as claimed, it is still manslaughter when three people have an accident. Such criminal offenses are serious abuses of power and must meet the definition of "serious crime." I think this makes it clear that impeachment is the appropriate step. We also believe that if the Senate finds the defendant guilty, he should be tried in civil court because the crime involved other US citizens. Thought-changing edits uJazz-Cigarettes have changed my mind about Al-Awlacki, but I'm still not convinced that his three other deaths were not criminal offences. Edit 2 As uTyrelxpeioust pointed out, the 14th Amendment only applies to states (and is therefore irrelevant here), but the 5th Amendment is relevant. | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
Before you vote me down, listen to me and come up with an appropriately worded comment about CMV. I hope this continues to be a civil debate without silencing people with denial. I will try to explain my opinion. Warning: It's a long story ahead. I saw Breaking Bad for the first time. I've never been interested in TV shows because they tend to take longer and appeal to a wider audience (in my opinion), but everyone told me to watch it, so I did. . This show definitely has some highlights. Bryan Cranston, Aaron Paul and Giancarlo Esposito all gave great performances. In my opinion the show wouldn't have been as successful without them. Gus' story arc, in my opinion, is the highlight of the series, with Gus' backstory and overall awesomeness. However, the other characters are irrelevant and don't have much to offer. There's a policeman who identifies Heisenberg from a comfy toilet, and his wife. So does Walter's son. Skyler is a hypocrite and exists only to morally judge others. The other villains are forgettable, and Psycho, who appears towards the end of the series, is a convenient plot device to destroy Jesse's romantic feelings and has no interesting traits. He is completely one dimensional. Ultimately, the series felt like an action movie with some interesting characters and pretty good cinematography, but nothing overwhelming. I still love it and I can understand why people like it too, but I doubt the quality of the TV show when it ranks as the best TV show of all time. As for Game of Thrones, I haven't read the books, nor will I, unless they are significantly better than the series. I try to keep my cool, but I really despise this show. I feel the same way about Attack on Titan (yes, I hate it too): an interesting setting, terrible characters and pacing, and a lot of cheapness. shock. worth. The show is always looking for the most shocking results to increase the shock value. People praise this show for being unpredictable and killing everyone indiscriminately. But I feel that everyone who dies is a complete fool, and their death must forbid the story from moving forward. When a Stark man finds out that the King's wife is having an incestuous relationship and suspects she is trying to kill her child, the man who loves his wife tells him not to trust him and gives his daughter was told by people who wanted him dead, and he claimed to just do the "Iron Throne" without thinking maybe, maybe, maybe, that he might be arrested and killed. I am just doing it. He could single-handedly clean up corruption in the South, or at least try to do so while others are trying to kill him, but we can't, can we? The story is allowed to progress and has nowhere to go. If his death was at least plausible, so be it. And then there's the dragon girl who marries someone she doesn't love, gets raped, and then just falls in love with him. Dafuq, maybe Stockholm Syndrome? And by the end of Season 3, the other Starks die for being complete fools. If you promised to marry the daughter of a powerful ally, it would certainly be wise to marry another woman, Einstein! After that, I quit the series. It's like a melodrama, with lots of violence and sex, characters that are considered "grey" are just flat, except for dwarfs (I don't even remember the names of these people) and maybe a little tomboy. No interesting developments Stark has a girl and Stark is on the night watch. There's a woman who incests with her handsome brother, a king who loves to drink, eat and have sex, a naive stupid king, a Stockholm Syndrome dragon girl who turns bad because of a dragon, and a psychopathic teenage king. . Like the quiet guy who hasn't died in three seasons, or the man whose penis took control of his head and sentenced his family to death. This is considered good television. If this is the best TV can offer, I don't want to bother watching it anymore. Please try CMV. | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
My wife and I were recently talking about a hair appointment she had. When she asked her how much it would cost, she told me [total]: [price] [tip]. Now, I understand tipping waiters and bartenders who make $2.13 an hour, but barbers are trained and licensed professionals who earn many times that $2.13 an hour. The same goes for masseurs. 100 for an hour massage and tip? Damn son, I'm doing the wrong job... Your point is that the people who provide these services don't take 100% of the bill home, and I admit that , they are still educated and licensed No professional services required. where do you draw the line? Why not tip a plumber or an electrician? What about a doctor or a lawyer? These people don't take the full check home, but I don't expect a tip, and I'm not socially obligated to tip them. A tip was once either a reward or a bribe for exceptional service. My understanding is that in the old days, if you received great service and wanted to show your appreciation, you would tip the person who provided the service. If you want special treatment, you can "tip" (read: bribe) someone to get it. A better hotel room? A table with a view? Anything is fine. But I'm sorry, but it's a bit silly to have a social obligation to pay extra money when the person already has a living income, and that the standard only applies to some services. is even more ridiculous. EditUpdate: First of all, I would like to thank her CMV for a very lively and interesting discussion. I learned a lot from this thread and enjoyed discussing it. After reading as many comments as I can, I stand by this issue. I admit that hairdressers aren't as "high-earning" as I originally claimed. The average US stylist makes less than $30,000 a year, just above the poverty line. I wouldn't make the same concessions to massage therapists (OP's other example). Because A) massage therapists make more money, B) they are more likely to become entrepreneurs, and C) massage therapists don't have to pay full price. Fees and commissions that hairdressers receive from their income. However, I understand the difference between a massage therapist who owns a small business and a massage therapist who is hired by someone else, and I agree that the latter are less profitable. One of the points I've always tried to raise is that tipping social conventions are inconsistent. That is, some services are expected to tip his provider, but not others. Ultimately, I've found this to be very subjective and mostly down to personal preference. For example, this thread had a lot of replies saying they were tipping plumbers, electricians, etc. The idea of tipping a service provider generously The fact that regular visits lead to better service and, consequently, higher levels of payment for service lends credence to the common practice of tipping. It will be a certain basis. I have to say I knew that all along, but maybe I didn't make it clear enough. my mistake. General generosity and even if it is an individual's prerogative to decide what to do, give those who work hard in service jobs a few dollars more than they give away for a living. The idea that life is better spent was most compelling. Nice to see the discussion in the thread again and again. Consider my perspective changed. Good discussion, everyone. Hello CMV users! This is a footnote from the moderator. There are a few things to keep in mind. First, don't forget to [READ THE RULES]. If you find an incorrect comment, reporting it is more effective than rejecting it. Speaking of which, [downvoting doesn't change my mind]! If you're thinking of submitting a CMV yourself, check out the Popular Topics Wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to send us a message. Enjoy your CMV! | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
I am having this discussion with a girlfriend who believes there should be no division between male and female sports. One of the biggest issues we grapple with is gender and gender definitions. Of course, being born with a penis or a vagina does not make you male or female. Your gender is determined by what gender you feel and what brain gender you are. So if LeBron identifies as a woman, it would be an example of a woman who can compete (very well) in the NBA. But I don't think this proves me wrong. For the purposes of this discussion, I think we should consider only the completely objective (yes, I know, gender identity is objective) characteristics of physical ability. Most people will find that he can be divided into two groups based on his physical characteristics. These groups are usually called men and women. This is very politically wrong, but you also need to realize that there are physical differences in how people are born, especially in these two groups of his that the majority of people fall into. . People who have certain characteristics at birth can be classified objectively. About half of them naturally have testosterone-like properties that lead to increased strength throughout the body. This difference in overall strength is evident when looking at top male and female athletes. If you were measuring attributes that would be considered sports, e.g. B. How fast you can run, how high you can jump, how fast you can turn, dexterity, how much weight you can lift. such as whether it is possible. It turns out that in one sport one group performs much better than the other, and the other group does better. Events cannot compete well with other events. These he said that if two groups were both eligible to be drafted into a professional sport, only members of one group would be more athletic than the top players of the other group, albeit at a lower professional level. It gets drafted just because it's good. Of course, I forget about intersex (spelling?) people, so I have no idea what typical athleticism is like for these people. I am however saying that people who we would assign the sex female to, at birth, who have those traits that a vast majority of other individuals have, are not as strong and athletic and those born who we would assign the sex male to at birth, who also have characteristics that a vast majority of the population have. Probably each of these groups with these similar characteristics is something close to being 49-49, as people who fall outside of those two main categories of physical traits I would imagine are small minorities in the population. I think I have summarized all my points I was making. I am not transphobic or sexist or anything of the sort and I am deeply sorry if I offended anyone and it was not my intention and I tried to be as objective as possible. Edit: I am not sure if this is allowed on this sub and I may have to have my girlfriend post her point of view, but if you agree with me I would greatly appreciate it if you could show me some evidence to help back myself up.:) Thanks! Edit 2: Yes there are lots lots of games and individual positions that women could competitively hold. But I argue that there will be no women in top elite athletes such as the NBA in basketball, because women cannot compete as well as men in the most athletic sports that require a combination of strength, speed and jumping. To do. Hello users! This is a footnote from the moderator. There are a few things to keep in mind. First, don't forget to [READ THE RULES]. If you find an incorrect comment, reporting it is more effective than rejecting it. Speaking of which, [downvoting doesn't change my mind]! If you're considering contributing yourself, check out the Popular Topics Wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to send us a message. Enjoy your CMV! | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
That's where the discussion about sexism and video games started, and everyone put their guns and pitchforks down for a while. When the mainstream media blogosphere decides to talk about video games in a context unrelated to turning children into mass-murdering psychopaths, the concern is that video games lack female characters. very often occur. [For example, the BBC cites a study showing that she is the only 15 female characters]. In many cases, this can be attributed to the developer's or the consumer's own sexism. I wouldn't be naive to say that neither group has any notable values, but I don't think the fact is one or the other: 1) particularly alarming, 2) as much as one might think. Being necessarily biased, and some gender differences are certainly pertinent. Now, before I say "Taranaki, Chavenist, paternalistic pig!", let me explain. I love female characters, especially gorgeous ones, both in games and in other media. "Rita" from "Edge of Tomorrow" by Mikasa Ackerman, Fem Shep, and Emily Blunt. Impressive. So why is the gender gap not paid attention to and clearly unsupported? Looking at the most popular games right now, I don't think this is something to worry about. First, there are the ubiquitous shooters. Now, I don't mean to disparage anyone's contribution throughout history at all, and there are no exceptions to this rule, but throughout history, 99.9% of people who have acted with thugs have been stabbed, shot, bombed, or killed. Fighter flight, was a man. So when so many games deal with World War II, modern warfare, or future warfare (to a lesser extent), it's not surprising, and especially wrong, that the characters are all male. I don't think so. In fact, it seems a little off-putting to have women sneak into Omaha Beach or fictional Iraq just to meet their quota. Also, most adventure games (Assassin's Creed, The Witcher, God of War) usually run around slashing people with swords, and I don't think it's particularly terrible to see men appear. That's how humans have acted this way throughout history (although there are exceptions that also prove the rule), and I don't find it particularly embarrassing for game developers to make the decision to make their protagonists male. If the characters in a game set in medieval fantasy England are mostly Caucasian and neither Asian nor Indian, that's like expressing concern about racism. Sometimes games have female protagonists playing such games. This is great. But I dont think its necessarily a sign of sexism that a good deal less than 50 of games pursue this kind of "rarer scenario," any more than it would be a sign of racism that a good deal of game's main characters were not Indian when fighting in fantasy settings modeling 15th century england. With so many games involved in meating out death and murder which historically has vastly skewed toward one sex over another, and a large number of games involving sports, I think people who see few reletively few females in videogames and decide that is maliciously "inappropriate," are missing the bigger picture why there are fewer women than men and why that isnt malicious at all. Am I wrong in this? Should women be expected to be (and developers held to account to provide games that) equally prevalent in men throughout games? CMV TLDR: With so many modern games focused on killing, I dont think its particularly sexist that game designers choose main characters who are of the sex that have been predominantly doing the killing over human history. Sure there were some women who were terrible, but they were generally abnormal. So, I believe that the natural non-sexist divide in the prevalence of male and female characters shouldn't come as a surprise (or necessarily a bad thing) to anyone. Hello CMV users! This is a footnote from the moderator. There are a few things to keep in mind. First, don't forget to [READ THE RULES]. If you find an incorrect comment, reporting it is more effective than rejecting it. Speaking of which, [downvoting doesn't change my mind]! If you're thinking of submitting a CMV yourself, check out the Popular Topics Wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to send us a message. Enjoy your CMV! | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
First let me say this, I want to prove the opposite here. I just want to go along with my friend's opinion because every time I tell my friend about my opinion, I am thoroughly reprimanded. Never. "It's so racist." "So intolerant, I can't believe we're friends." I was raised racist in the South, but no worse than my parents at that. (My great-grandparents had ties to the KKK.) I have never verbally or physically abused anyone just for being black, and I have been able to hire and fire people for being black or otherwise. There is no such thing. In fact, I can say: I can assure you that I never intentionally belittled or demeaned black life (I try not to do that to anyone). People don't even know I'm racist. And aside from the fact that I have remarkably few (i.e. zero) black friends, I behave like a politically correct white American, and I don't think there is anything wrong with that. Yes per se (more on CMV for another time). That being said... I can't help but feel that eugenics is grounded in truth. In my opinion, humanity originated in Africa, where dark skin and near immunity to skin cancer was a big advantage. Of course, blacks thrived there. But it must have been an advantageous trait at some point for white people to exist in the first place. I mean, that's how natural selection works, right? Ultimately, somewhere someone was born with white skin, which was kind of an advantage, and eventually that person's descendants were what we perceive as white. If Caucasians evolved in Europe, it means that being Caucasian is an advantage in European climates. The question is how much of an advantage this is. I'm thinking of 4 possibilities: 1. Somehow it turned out to be a survival trait. 2. The resources saved by not producing melanin in the skin somehow contributed to the development (I'm not lying, I wrote that because it sounds utter nonsense). 3. It wasn't necessarily a survival trait, but it made reproduction easier (or just more common). Frankly, if lighter skin was more attractive, it would flourish as a feature. 4. White skin was a pure coincidence, and there were other factors that made whites wealthy. I can't think of any reason why 1 is true and 2 is probably false, but I do know that 3 is true. There are far more black men targeting white women than white men targeting black women. Even in India, light skin is considered more attractive. There is a certain sweet spot between light and dark colors that is generally considered attractive. That's why Rihanna's publicist had whitened Rihanna's skin in posters, why Indian aristocrats tried to stay indoors to whiten her skin, and why white women wanted to bask in the sun. This is the reason why Everyone has their preferred skin color, which is closer to white than black. Even if the last paragraph is wrong. Even if it was the fourth possibility I put forward, it still suggests that white people have something superior within themselves that causes them to spread first across Europe and then Africa. It would mean enslaving most and then murdering most of America before settling down. It basically conquers the whole world (half of the world, so to speak) except for Asia. I've heard some people say that the only reason was that white people were so violent and aggressive, but isn't that in itself a favorable trait from the point of view of natural selection? A gene survives even if it kills a competing gene. Clearly, all the eugenics cited by the Nazis and Tom Buchanan are bogus pseudoscience, but isn't there some basis for truth in them? Could it be that black Americans, who are poor (and still disproportionately low-income), have not been able to "make it" like whites because they are frankly inferior? CMV. | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
I've been discussing this subject a lot in my free time lately, and I can't seem to find a reasonable argument against my point of view, so I thought it would be a good discussion. I think people and parents who tell their kids that they shouldn't be playing video games for 3 hours and should be reading instead are very narrow-minded. I think games, like all new media, come with a stigma attached to them becoming the new pure evil when they keep away from children. Otherwise, you'll end up with little devils blowing up the school and causing trouble in the classroom. I think people are prejudiced against video games because they are a relatively new medium, not primarily for negative reasons. People don't like new technology until they have no problem with it dominating us, the "Idiot's Lantern" when television was first introduced into American homes. As an example to further illustrate my point, I have heard a story of a person who would play games on his computer very surreptitiously, and whenever he heard his parents coming to his room to check on him, he would quickly turn off the monitor and jump to his bed to act as if he was watching television instead. His parents of course spend multiple hours in the evening lying or sitting on the couch watching TV, something he found very hypocritical of them whenever he was criticized for spending too much time on his computer. Now I'm aware there are lots of factors to account for, such as eye strain when staring into a bright screen, and carpal tunnel, but my point is that doing a reasonable amount of either reading or video games is no more detrimental one way or the other. Obviously playing video games instead of doing homework isn't good, but so is reading a fun fiction novel. (slightly anecdotal) There's also a negative stigma I've found when people identify as a "gamer." I've seen people (on reddit mostly) say that they "cringe" whenever they see someone identify as a "gamer" and say that its silly to identify yourself by one silly hobby. On the other hand, if someone says he likes to read in his free time and spends as much time as possible reading new novels and literature, he has an interesting and interesting habit. become a person One of my friends has openly told me that he doesn't mind when someone says it's all about video games, but that if he likes to read, he'd like to know more about games. Video games and books are clearly different. Books express a fantasy world by reading words and creating images in your head, but video games are a visual and interactive medium in which the fantasy world still exists. It's more than that. Clear. In fact, I would argue that video games can offer more advantages in some situations, as they promote hand-eye coordination, fine motor skills, pattern recognition, spatial awareness, and indeed many theories. A friend of mine who played MMO World of Warcraft for 4 years is very good at math because he knows the market system well and now wants to become a stockbroker. A single League of Legends teamfight involves a lot of planning, strategy, and statistical analysis, not to mention the theory associated with different items that offer different bonuses. Video games allow so much creativity, so many different skills to use, and so deep into stories and experiences, but for some reason, it's an activity that should be allowed to do so often. not. Hello CMV users! This is a footnote from the moderator. There are a few things to keep in mind. First, don't forget to [READ THE RULES]. If you find an incorrect comment, reporting it is more effective than rejecting it. Speaking of which, [downvoting doesn't change my mind]! If you're thinking of submitting a CMV yourself, check out the Popular Topics Wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to send us a message. Enjoy your CMV! | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
This CMV is from a thread on roffmychest titled "White people... and the Black Experience". Posting this as an answer in hopes of starting a dialogue, but to no avail. For the record, I'm a Jewish "white" girl in her late twenties from Brooklyn, NY. I grew up in the rather isolated Jewish culture of the 80's and 90's, which was very different from each other, rather than the so-called modern "white culture". My family has just come to this country in the middle of the 20th century from Ukraine and Poland, victims of pogroms and the Holocaust. My family; neither my parents' parents nor their parents' parents were involved in slavery, apartheid, genocide, or war. In fact, we are from a small Štetl that managed to stay away from these events until the turn of the century. Now for the gist of my presentation, and where my problem comes into play. I do believe in much of what the modern black experience entails—human appropriation of culture, glass ceilings, and occasional racism—but as if my family traditions mean nothing. Reject the grouping of "white people" as in. have the same skin color. I have never committed such a terrible crime against black people, their families, their ancestors, nor am I from a family. When we talk about Israel, we often hear answers like, "You white Americans slaughtered Native Americans and enslaved people, so you have no right to talk about such issues." This is just a fallacy of argument, and even if I and my ancestors hadn't strayed far from it, it would be easier to attack me personally for doing their own thing. And that is also the truth about this matter. Although I am white, I do not carry the burden of historical slavery and abuse. It's not a burden for me to bear. I mourn those who lived through this time, those who were hurt, and whose children are still struggling with the effects of our time. But I am not your oppressor, nor do I come from an ancestral lineage that has suppressed these events. don't think after me In fact, I come from the exact opposite, from the group formerly known as the Eternal Sacrifice. If it were a modern claim that immigrating to a country and becoming a citizen also inherits that country's history, that would negate everything I am saying, but I would like to take that point of view. I do not agree with Personally, I'm not racist and never use the N-word and any part of your culture (pigtails, "she has a black ass", or "twerk" etc. ) has never been plagiarized. If you need me, I will fight for your rights - and I hope you will do the same for me. Now, on to another point about white privilege. America definitely has white privilege. I've definitely seen it growing in New York, and I definitely see it here in Washington DC. If I'm guilty, it's that I live in a society where white privilege is prevalent, and that I've been blessed with the opportunity to take advantage of it without really realizing it. But I'm still fighting for the privileges I don't have, the freedom to be LGBT, to be a woman in control of my body, and to be Jewish. I do not agree with the derogatory use of "white people". CMV Hello fellow CMV users. This is a footnote from the moderator. There are a few things to keep in mind. First, don't forget to [READ THE RULES]. If you find an incorrect comment, reporting it is more effective than rejecting it. Speaking of which, [downvoting doesn't change my mind]! If you're thinking of submitting a CMV yourself, check out the Popular Topics Wiki first. Questions or concerns? Feel free to send us a message. Enjoy your CMV! | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
I don't think it's a big secret that most of Reddit despises obesity so much. Subreddits like rfatlogic, rfatpeoplestories, and of course rfatpeoplehate (please don't link directly to any of them) have tens of thousands of subscribers. Even if you don't check these subchannels, it's not hard to find fat people demeaning comments here and there (especially on the main subchannel). Now, I have heard many "arguments" as to why this disapproval, and sometimes hatred, of fat people is logical and justified, but none of these claims have been supported by even the slightest scrutiny. I am completely convinced that no. I would like to list some of the most common arguments and explain why I think they are illogical. 1. Fat people strain the health care system and pay higher taxes. First, obese people are generally at higher risk for many diseases and are responsible for the majority of medical costs. But so do smokers, alcoholics, drug addicts, and others who self-harm. There is no subreddit dedicated to hating these people. On the contrary, there are many subsystems (such as Rtree) that openly support these practices. If these people are a burden on the healthcare system, why are they less hated than fat people? 2. Fat people simply lack self-control. Fat is the result of eating too much and not exercising enough, so you can stop at any time. I will admit once again that there is some truth in this statement. It's true that both exercise and a healthy diet lead to weight loss, and failure to do so may indicate a lack of self-control. But being fat means more than overeating and being lazy. Many people were raised with bad eating habits from an early age. It is very difficult to break habits that are formed in adulthood. Many people also learn to eat emotionally. This means eating to suppress negative emotions or to achieve positive emotions. Again, this is not something you can turn on or off like a light switch. Because these are behaviors that are learned from the environment, they are very difficult to undo. These behaviors may also be coping mechanisms resulting from psychiatric disorders such as depression and anxiety. Mental illness is just as legitimate as physical illness. No one would tease a cancer patient for having no hair. So why make fun of depressed people for being fat? 3. Bullying fat people makes them want to be healthier: Humiliating fat people works. [That's totally wrong. ] I haven't seen any scientific evidence to support fat shaming. I'd love to see if anyone has one. 4. Fat people just feel sick. Well, many people find homosexuality repugnant. Some people find interracial relationships abhorrent. Some people hate Jews. What all of this has in common is that none of these people are trying to hurt you. If fat people are actively trying to ruin your life and harm you, you may have good reason to hate them, but it's because they're fat. Not because they are bad people. There are also many who deserve to be hated for their aptitude. If you don't find fat people attractive, don't look at them. You don't have to take your anger out on them. If I've missed something or there's a discussion I haven't addressed, please remind me. I would like to know some of the reasons for such claims. I can only think of "fat shamers" as bullies who think there is something wrong with them. I would like to prove otherwise. thank you! Hello CMV users! This is a footnote from the moderator. There are a few things to keep in mind. First, don't forget to [READ THE RULES]. If you find an incorrect comment, reporting it is more effective than rejecting it. Speaking of which, [downvoting doesn't change my mind]! If you're thinking of submitting a CMV yourself, check out the Popular Topics Wiki first. Questions or concerns? Feel free to send us a message. Enjoy your CMV! | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
I know it's an unpopular opinion, so please forgive me for throwing it away. I've been labeled as an extremist, so I really want to understand the other side of the argument better and take a more neutral view of things. It feels weird to be labeled as an extremist. I'm not a "gun buff," but I own a gun based on the last bullet point on the list. As the title says, I don't believe in gun control. Here are some of my thoughts on the matter. If the goal is to prevent violent crime, the funds will go to health and mental health care, education, rehabilitation of convicted offenders, and job opportunities in public works. Side-note: I'm aware some politicians know these are more effective but go for the "low hanging fruit" of gun control for voter support. Rather than help those in need we create more ways to put them in jail. Multiple studies show that these areas tend to have more effect on violent crime than any gun control laws, or reduction of gun control laws (as some gun nuts would have you think) Likewise, tangentially related but hardly bullet point worthy: I don't feel firearm ownership has much to do with violent crime, and I think the statistics that suggest so are inherently skewed. The ones I'm familiar with have never touched on issues such whether the areas of higher violent crime are experiencing gentrification, recent mingling of other culturesraces, economic downturn, or a druggang boom. I've personally lived in many areas, and the safest ones weren't necessarily full of guns or highly regulated, they were just "stable" living areas. on site. bored. Charging customers for background checks adds to the cost of already expensive self-defense weapons. Combine this with the fact that the people most likely to need guns for self-defense live in poor neighborhoods and you can see why I think it's unfair. Requiring money to apply for permission to carry hidden money has the same problems as the previous point. In my opinion, anyone in the upper class can get illegal firearms if they want without evidence or example. Furthermore, should they ever run into legal issues with it, their ability to avoid jail time is greater than the average mid-lower class Joe Touching on that last point, I can give two examples of politicians who feel they are above their own laws: Senator Diane Feinstein of California has repeatedly spoken against allowing concealed carry for civillians. She has a concealed carry permit herself. I understand the tough experience she had to deal with, losing her husband, but it does not excuse her air of superiority. Donne Trotter, of the Illinois state senate has repeatedly voted for restriction of firearms, yet himself was caught with a semi automatic pistol at an airport Only tangentially related, but some of my life philosophy on related issues: Nobody should face jail time for a crime that of itself does not have a victim (or damage the shared resources of our society). No one human's life is inherently worth more than any other. As a human being, you have a reasonable obligation to be self-sufficient. Eat your own meals (preferably healthy), always have a fire extinguisher in the kitchen, avoid smoking stimulants, pay your own rent, and save your own life in an emergency. The police can help, but it is irresponsible to rely solely on them. People who live in areas with the busiest police tend to have the greatest need to protect themselves and the least legally able to do so. Basically, there are the haves and the have-nots. Those who "have" will have guns if they want, and there will be security guards with guns if they want, and those of us below the middle class will be jailed if we don't follow the rules. It will be. Current restrictions are grossly unfair when compared to their impact on the lower and middle classes. PS: I live in California. I've been thinking about writing this article for a long time, and I finally got around to writing it while discussing California's new microstamping laws. This is unproven, easily avoidable (as criminals trying to cover up the source of firearms) and by the numbers would increase the cost of gun ownership in my state. | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
The laws that legalize preferential treatment are themselves discriminatory. (Definition 2 – “Recognizing and understanding the difference between one thing and another. They recognize that some classes of people are different from others and are treated differently.) Life is It's inherently unfair: while certain groups are politically popular, other unpopular groups get special treatment, and the unpopular groups lose their competitive advantage. Matter: Height is another common form of discrimination in the labor market.It is said that every inch of height added to your annual income is $789.Those considered unattractive earn 10 to 15 less than attractive people (The next study found a penalty of 24.) From 15 you will earn several times that amount. An unintelligent person earns significantly less than an intelligent person. Intelligence is primarily an innate quality. Of course, you have to claim that you actually support these efforts. If you don't, you're doing preferential discrimination. Why is it good to favor black men but not ugly women? Why is it good to favor gay women, but refuse to favor short men? So now you add Level of attractiveness Height To your protected class definitions, since no one has control over their height or general level of attractiveness (everyone has the same access to dress general makeup) But now you're in a really sticky situation. Why is it okay that you offer preferential treatment to someone who is a woman, and yet deny preferential treatment to someone who is born an intellectually inferior male? Certainly a WOMAN is entitled to make 100 of the wage a man makes, then why is a DULLARD who was born with the same lack of control over their destiny not entitled to make the same wage if they were born to at least average intelligence (correcting for environmental effects)? Now you must either subsidize them by forcing employers to hire them at average intelligence rates (which is unlikely for a side for you to pick) or be forced to either admit "life is inherently unfair" or that yes you should distribute a portion of taxes to them for them to have as income, free to do with whatever they want. People who are taller than average or considered more attractive than average would need to pay a penalty. Alternatively, if someone is taller and more attractive, then paying higher wages must be viewed as discriminatory (ignoring the fact that discrimination happens anyway, or staying out of touch with reality). We must wage a war that does not exist). Similarly, discriminatory recruitment policies should be put in place so that the distribution of large and small applicants is roughly even based on natural distribution, and the same is true of attractiveness. Lawyers and law enforcement also have race and gender. Otherwise, you are for selective preferential treatment, not really against discrimination. You may say, "I just want to protect myself from discrimination, I shouldn't be denied a job because I'm gay or black," but why should I be denied a job because I'm ugly? ? “Nobody would turn down a job because they don't have enough money.” Indeed, why are we fighting for equal pay for women? Don't just refuse a job. You're certainly not advocating equal pay for women, but you're not advocating equal pay for people without money either. A closer analysis of this should reveal that life is inherently unfair and that trying to legalize morality is absurd. We cannot deny that we discriminate against stupid people, and even say that some people should be entitled to a more just existence than others without upholding injustice. not. Supporting selective justice is even more unfair than no regulation at all. For example, to protect homosexuals but ignore fools is to say that homosexuals deserve more justice than fools. It is clear that these groups do not really want a discrimination-free society, they just want their own further development. Because to really be "perfectly equal" you have to support stupid people, little people, etc. Such a thing is neither possible nor desirable. Therefore, this guideline itself is discriminatory. | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
That's a long question... I really appreciate all the thoughtful answers and I'm always available to ask clarification questions. I have omitted some evidence that supports my claim to be concise. I was thinking of this question as a reference to a specific question I asked a long time ago. If you are walking through an oak tree and see a child drowning in a pond, do you have a moral obligation to save the children (or do you have a moral obligation to help them?) in some way? can you help them? ) Of course I'm going to do that from the beginning. I also think that people who can do it deserve to do so. But it doesn't matter. It is very important to keep this in mind. I am not asking this. “Do you have a social obligation to help them?” Do you feel obligated to help? Do you have a responsibility to do this? Will you judge someone for not saving them? Should it be illegal to ignore them? Again, I don't ask such questions because I believe that any sane person would intervene and save the child. If I take the time to take off my shoes and put my phone in, I pass judgment. I have come to the conclusion that you have no moral obligation to help. Consider the parallels between saving a drowning girl and using your time to save starving children in another country. What is the difference? They are farther away, they are not part of your community, you can't see the help you provide, you can't see them suffer in the first place, you don't know for sure if you are helping by sending money, it would be much more difficult to provide direct assistance, they have longer to live from the time we would decide to help, they may recieve help from someone else. None of those reasons would be an excuse to ignore a moral obligation. If we truly believed that it was our moral obligation to help the drowning child, why would it not also be our obligation to help every other human in need according to our closest approximation of how we could theoretically devote our lives to helping the greatest possible number of people. It is of course possible that you believe this in which case almost every human ever is hugely immoral, but I think that defining morality in this way would make the word meaningless, and it is not useful - nor is it a reasonable definition for morality. On the other hand, there is a moral belief system that would treat morality as if you had no obligation to help anyone, and an unwarrented harm would be immoral, whereas helping people or leaving them alone would be considered positive or neutral respectively. If we accept this attitude, drowning a child is considered a morally neutral (or immoral) act. Most people would still think it was a terrible thing, but people's emotional reactions have nothing to do with objective morality. (There may be exceptions to human-induced emotional distress, but our hypothetical passer-by was not responsible for the child's drowning, so we cannot blame him for the emotional aftermath. ) This scenario is also closely related to the idea of trains. Experiment by standing in front of a lever that changes the train's direction of travel. In the current course, it will hit 5 people. If you change course, you will run into a man. Using the logic I've set up, it's immoral to flip a lever and use it to blame that one guy, but it's moral to allow a train to crash into five guys. neutral (assuming no further information or alternatives are available). Should this analogy be proven false, or given a better explanation of the moral dilemma, should I reconsider this position? I also believe that morality is objective in relation to humans, and that principles are therefore established that apply equally to all scenarios of right or wrong interpretations of what constitutes moral conduct. , and the interpretation is directed upwards only if: immoral agent. Acts that are considered immoral (such as murder) are seen as justified (such as killing someone who is trying to kill them). | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
The Gregorian calendar is a very complicated and illogical way of showing the passage of time. In particular: - The moon is uneven. The length of the moon changes irregularly, which is confusing. A month with just 28 or 29 days? Just alternating 31 days and 31 days reverses to August? Just because some ancient emperors had oversized egos, there is no reason to use complex calendars. 365 has very few elements, so perfect splitting is not realistic, but at least it can be improved over what it is today. Months 1 to 5 are for example 31 days, and months 6 to 12 are for example 30 days. reception has leap days). ). - The months and seasons do not match. The vernal equinox and summer solstice that define the seasons. Why should the season start on the 23rd, even though it starts on the 1st or 2nd, and the whole month is one season (or close to it)? Also, the months are kept as part of the departmental hierarchy (4 seasons in a year, 3 months in a season). As a result of this change, the year no longer begins in the middle of winter. New Year's Day may be the first day of spring. EDIT According to some of the replies I've received, many places seem to use the term "seasons" more colloquially, with "summer" simply meaning "when the days are long and warm", It does not mean "a period during the summer". summer solstice and autumnal equinox. For clarity, this latter meaning is what I used. Harvesting, hunting, basketball, and tourist seasons are all regional, but the seasons associated with axis tilt are, to my knowledge, universal. - The school year and fiscal year do not match the calendar year. Why the 2014-2015 school year when you can fit the entire year on your calendar? The fiscal year does not have a fixed time, and the academic year varies greatly from region to region and cannot be aligned with a universal calendar. It changed the way I used to look. These are three objections I have in particular. Shift your perspective and explain why these problems are necessary, or why fixing them would create other problems (besides the practicality of introducing a new system). I know it would be very unrealistic to actually force the world to adopt a new calendar, but such practical concerns are out of the question for me, so I'm not going to discuss it. Nor do I intend to appeal to tradition. So change your mind EDIT There was some confusion regarding my intentions here. We understand that the cost of changing calendars is enormous and not worth it given the relatively small benefits of a more consistent system. However, if I had taken this into consideration when preparing my post, my views would have already changed and I would not have bothered to publish it. The fundamental question that interests me is whether there is any justification for the contradictions that the Gregorian calendar currently exhibits. If you build your calendar from scratch, is there any reason to use irregular months instead of regular months? Is there any reason to start the year in the middle of winter instead of switching to a new season? What I want to ask is that part, not whether it can be implemented. If it helps you focus on the current problem, rephrase it like this: There is a button that when pressed retroactively switches the current calendar to the calendar containing the above "fixes". This change is instant, seamless, and costs nothing beyond the push of a button. Please persuade me not to push. Hello CMV users! This is a footnote from the moderator. There are a few things to keep in mind. First, don't forget to [READ THE RULES]. If you find an incorrect comment, reporting it is more effective than rejecting it. Speaking of which, [downvoting doesn't change my mind]! If you're thinking of submitting a CMV yourself, check out the Popular Topics Wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to send us a message. Enjoy your CMV! | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
We hear a lot these days about mandatory vaccination programs in public schools. I think there is no problem. I've heard some counter-arguments, but they don't seem very satisfying to me. For example: 1. My child, my choice. oh well. And, in my opinion, this is the closest to a valid argument. But, of course, we limit what parents can do and choose for their children. You can't (in the US) deprive a child of food or education and leave it there, so obviously that's not your only choice. Vaccine refusal is far from that level, but children are human beings and not property, so not all possible choices are equally acceptable. The ability of children to refuse might upset me, but unfortunately little babies don't understand vaccinations in the slightest. More importantly, it is still your choice as part of your school immunization program. You can either homeschool your child or send him to a private school that doesn't care. These options aren't available to everyone, which is unfortunate (for reasons much more important than these), but... that's our current system. Being rich brings many benefits. I don't think it's any different than if you had the means, you could buy your kids better health care, better schools, better food, tutors, etc. (I support a basic income, so This problem will be alleviated). But we don't have it, so it's neither here nor there). Public schools are government agencies with rules about who can and who can't. I think it's fair to say that only vaccinated (or medically diagnosed) people can use it. 2. Not everyone can get vaccinated. For this reason, doctors can exempt people who are medically unsuitable for vaccination. This has already happened and should continue to happen. 3. Vaccinations are dangerous. It's not as dangerous as an infectious disease that spreads. Honestly, it's controversial in and of itself... but suffice it to say that we'll need some pretty significant evidence of CMV's potential. I don't think it exists, but I wouldn't rule it out. I don't want to say too much about the effectiveness of vaccines because they've already been proven effective, but if there's really amazing evidence... 4. Everyone has the right to an education. they still are. Unvaccinated children must attend non-public institutions, be homeschooled or schooled, or present a medical certificate stating that they should not be vaccinated, or be vaccinated. yeah. I don't necessarily have a clear idea of how best to deal with violations, nor do I know enough about politics to say what is most effective and fair. Maybe parents will be fined? Is it the same punishment as parents who keep their children out of school or homeschooling for other reasons? I do not support taking children out of the house, imprisoning parents, or any other severe punishment. What changes my mind: Evidence that such policies pose clear public health risks, inevitably hinder children's education, or have other significant adverse effects on society. I'm also open to the idea that it's fundamentally unfair, even if I don't feel it at the moment. PS: My post is mainly focused on why I don't think compulsory vaccination is a bad thing, but I thought it might be helpful to say why I think it's a good thing. . What I particularly like about this system is the small number of people who can't get vaccinated, or whose vaccines don't work, or whose vaccines stop working faster than medical guidelines "should" give. It's to protect our children. I think this goes a long way to safety because children should be safe in school and children can die from preventable diseases. Edit 2: If vaccines are prohibitively expensive and not available for free, this system sucks for poor families. In my area, you can get a free vaccination under certain conditions that are very mild. If this isn't the case across the United States (and it's almost certainly not), it should be before vaccination becomes mandatory. Addendum 3: I'm going to bed now and will reply to a new post tomorrow. If that fails, we may not be able to reach everyone, but we will try to address any new issues that arise. | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
We are talking about the first three films. When she was a kid, she watched The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull and some of the Young Indiana Jones series once, but didn't want to watch them again because of this CMV. So let's talk about Raiders, Temple of Doom and The Last Crusade. The idea that "it belongs in a museum" was first introduced, partly as a flashback, in The Last Crusade - "It belongs to Coronado!" "Coronado is dead!" It belongs!” Indy argued first. Artifacts from his life and afterward without a clear owner belong to museums and should not be claimed as commercial or private property like the Coronado Cross. However, as the series progresses, he finds and loots artifacts for his own profit, but not just for museums, of course. Let's make one movie at a time. Raiders of the Lost Ark: Indy are known to [sell] what they find to the National Museum and Marcus Brody. Similarly, the government will pay generous costs for the recovery of the Ark of the Covenant. He still exhibits his artefacts in museums for which he is highly paid, and even takes personal commissions to find the Ark. Temple of Doom: At the beginning of Temple of Doom, we learn that Indy has been hired by organized crime in China to search for the body of the ancient emperor Nurhaci in exchange for a giant diamond. The ruins of Nurhaci are of great importance to historians and would be much better preserved in a museum. Instead, I.J. is tasked with finding them and delivering them to a wealthy private institution, much like the boyhood villains did in Coronado's Cross. This shows hypocrisy at least, and at worst that the Chinese mob is bidding higher than the museum. Sankara stones also have great historical value, and when they find something stolen from the village, they return it to the village. He makes no profit from it, but neither does he donate this very important relic to the museum. Indy believes it would be better for the village to have it. Indy, therefore, decided that this incredibly rare and important relic he had discovered, clearly more rare and more historical than the Coronado Cross, did not belong in the museum. Last Crusade: For much of the film, Indy isn't looking for the Holy Grail. he is looking for his father Like his other adventures, he's more concerned with his own goals than preserving history. His goal of finding the Ark, his father's Sankara Stone, and the Holy Grail is more important to him than preserving historical relics. Because they are not as important as what he actually wants to find. Indiana Jones isn't looking for historical records of "fortune and fame," but for artifacts that benefit him. good luck and glory. He finds artifacts for his own benefit, sometimes displaying them in museums, sometimes not. Either way, he gets paid for it. In the opening lesson scene of Raiders, Indy explains how searching for treasure in burial grounds has made it difficult for archaeologists to pinpoint the age of the site, and how the people who were looking for the treasure tells how much of the ruins were destroyed by the excavation of the In all three major films, Indy destroys or ignores historically significant items and locations simply because he wants to find the one item he's looking for. Teacher: Indiana Jones sells most of what he finds for profit, seeks out only the most valuable finds, and misses out on many of the truly important relics that should be in museums in his treasure hunts. He doesn't believe in keeping items in museums. He's just looking for precious treasures. Postscript: It's about 4:30 now, so I'll check again in the morning. Hello CMV users! This is a footnote from the moderator. There are a few things to keep in mind. First, don't forget to [READ THE RULES]. If you find an incorrect comment, reporting it is more effective than rejecting it. Speaking of which, [downvoting doesn't change my mind]! If you're thinking of submitting a CMV yourself, check out the Popular Topics Wiki first. Questions or concerns? Feel free to send us a message. Enjoy your CMV! | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
Recently, I was reading an article about transgender people in America and came across the term LGBTQI. he frowned. Because I've only seen about LGBT so far and the Q and I parts were new to me. I've done some research and have to admit that I'm more than a little confused as to why we need to add more terms. I have read several different websites and have asked my LGBT friends what is the difference between a queer and her LGB. From the information I've gathered, it seems like an arbitrary term just to make people think they are. Label inside the movement. You can be queer if you are bi, gay, lesbian, transgender, so why put it there? Another definition I received was that queer can also mean someone who is metrosexual or doesn't fit into a gender stereotype. Well, my husband is proud of his looks and quite metrosexual, but nobody thinks he's queer. I fully support the LGBT movement, but I am a heterosexual married woman. Given all the definitions of the word queer that have been given to me, I don't think I fit into the stereotype purview. So, am I considered queer? All in all, it seems like a very redundant term. The same is true for intersex. The oxford reference definition is "An organism displaying characteristics that are intermediate between those of the typical male and typical female of its species." From a medical perspective the Intersex Society of North America offers: Intersex" is a general term used for a variety of conditions in which a person is born with a reproductive or sexual anatomy that doesn't seem to fit the typical definitions of female or male." Whereas, from a LGBT standpoint, Intersex Initiative has an interesting perspective that simultaneously links Transgendered people with those who have intersex conditions "First, intersex bodies are pathologized and erased in a way that is similar to how homosexuality has historically been treated within psychiatry. Even though homosexuality has been officially depathologized for three decades, transgender people are still labeled as having "gender identity disorder" and thus treated as something abnormal rather than a natural human variety. From this point of view, intersex is just another sexual minority that is pathologized and treated as "abnormal. And seeks to break that link: "First, some people fear that adding the "I" would give the wrong impression that all or most intersex people are lesbian, gay, bisexual, and or transgender. Obviously, some intersex people are, and some aren'tbut when we are dealing with young children and their parents, there is a concern that the association with LGBT would drive away parents of intersex children who would otherwise seek out information and resources about intersex conditions. Worse, this misjudgment can lead parents to request further surgery to ease their fears about their child's future sexuality and gender identity. Above all. My concerns about intersex come from my real-life experience of having a nephew who was born with hermaphroditism. Just by visiting the Intersex Initiative website, it looks like your child's gender selection was wrong. I think that's what happens when some people insist on changes that have nothing to do with them. This is to create an environment where , and being able to develop its own gender identity is more important than ideology. Story was it. If you can, change my mind about what adding all those little labels that actually seem to mix can do for the LGBT community. Because, in my humblest opinion, the movement is semantically extinct. Source: The article that started this article: Intersex Initiative: ISNA: Hello CMV users! This is a footnote from the moderator. There are a few things to keep in mind. First, don't forget to [READ THE RULES]. If you find an incorrect comment, reporting it is more effective than rejecting it. Speaking of which, [downvoting doesn't change my mind]! If you're thinking of submitting a CMV yourself, check out the Popular Topics Wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to send us a message. Enjoy your CMV! | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
This is a policy that embraces extreme thinking from both the left and right. For future reference, this idea was introduced to me by David Goldhill's book Catastrophic Care: How American Medicine Killed My Father—and How We Can Fix It. I was. This book is based on his Atlantic article he wrote in 2009. Also, just like Goldhill, I am a Democrat. The main problem with healthcare in America is that it is extremely expensive. On healthcare alone, we spend almost 20% of our GDP (other countries spend almost 10% or less). Moreover, most health statistics show that healthcare is expensive and quality has not improved significantly compared to many other developed countries. Healthcare costs (or prices, as David encourages us to think) have become so expensive, largely because of the incentives (or lack of incentives) in the current system. When it comes to healthcare, most costs are covered by insurance, so consumers have little incentive to set their own prices. As a result, providers (doctors, hospitals, etc.) have a strong incentive to raise the price of their services and the amount (and waste) of their services. In addition, procedural tests are generally subsidized regardless of the cost or effectiveness of the procedural test (as long as it meets minimum standards of effectiveness and safety). Insured people often don't know how much medical care actually costs. And those expenses are also important. Health care costs are driving up insurance premiums and Medicare Medicaid plans, and we all pay that premium through taxes and personal insurance. That said, insurance can (and should) benefit from truly catastrophic care—events that come on suddenly and are unpredictable. The real purpose of insurance is to reduce the risk of an accident. And to a greater or lesser extent, the cost of care that is essential to maintaining human health cannot be denied. Therefore, a system needs to be put in place to ensure that truly catastrophic events are covered, while allowing consumers to make decisions about the rest of their care. To achieve this, Goldhill suggests: 1. Establish a national insurance plan for disaster relief. This is similar to depositor schemes in other countries, except that it carries dire health benefits. The possibility of opting out and using other insurers raises the issue of price discrimination, so everyone should get involved. Catastrophe coverage requires deductibles, but these can be mitigated with the following steps: 2. For the rest of your care, each person receives an annual mandatory medical savings account that can be used for their care (everyone receives the same amount). These health accounts can also be used as deductions for disaster care and other types of consumer-chosen care. Additionally, if someone runs out of money in this account, they can apply for a loan for future health savings (which they will definitely get anyway), which will help prevent acute health problems for many years to come. You can reduce the cost of the problem. This reduces costs (consumers fund about 70% of their medical expenses through provider-chosen health savings accounts, which incentivizes providers to lower prices to be more competitive). ), and I believe it will certainly reduce costs in the event of a disaster. covered. CMV! EDIT: I should have added that an important part of this idea is to increase the transparency of healthcare quality and costs. To achieve this, Goldhill proposes establishing a national health database to measure physician data. This ultimately allows consumers to choose providers based on cost and quality, and provides useful data for medical professionals to see what works and what is happening. increase. no. Hello CMV users! This is a footnote from the moderator. There are a few things to keep in mind. First, don't forget to [READ THE RULES]. If you find an incorrect comment, reporting it is more effective than rejecting it. Speaking of which, [downvoting doesn't change my mind]! If you're thinking of submitting a CMV yourself, check out the Popular Topics Wiki first. Questions or concerns? Feel free to send us a message. Enjoy your CMV! | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
The first time I started thinking about this was when Rick Santorum compared homosexuality to bestiality in an infamous comment. While this statement was clearly just a reaction to the idea of bestiality, the reaction of the GRA (gay rights activists) was astonishing. Sometimes they verbally agreed, but the emotion of the response seemed to be summed up as follows: This comparison is therefore invalid and offensive. The idea of consent was rather a rationalization, an afterthought. Animal approval is now questionable to say the least, but this is no reason for outrage. But as I dug deeper into it, a clearer example of hypocrisy emerged: polygamy. Consider [this article] trying to keep gay rights away from legalized polygamy. Specifically, this quote: "Here's the answer. It's not two. It's one." . . Second, that number is not arbitrary. It's human nature." (emphasis mine) Imagine this argument being used in same-sex marriage. It's only natural that he would be laughed at now. How about the fourth entry on [this otherwise correct article] , which says the idea of marrying whomever you want is "childish." Hows that for marriage equality? [Another one] , that compares polygamy to pedophilia (12 year olds cannot consent) in the second paragraph, using the same cheap shot he's criticizing. This shows the thought process behind all this: they think about sexuality and law just the same way conservative evangelicals do. They consider sexuality they approve of to be worthy of being legal, and scorn sexuality they find disgusting or "wrong." I'm not a polygamist nor do I want to be one, but I recognize that social change is constant and GRA are not as high-and-mighty as they think. When the new social issues come up they will be the ones with the bigotry, and they will be the ones "standing in the doorway, blocking up the hall." Bt then again this all is making me agree with [Rick Santorum] and [Mike Huckabee] , so please, CMV! EDIT: While polygamy is an interesting debate, I brought that up as an example of a larger pattern of emotional thinking about sexuality and law. Show CMV that my interpretation of the gay rights movement is bullshit. Addendum 2: Bringing up incest, some people think it has some relevance to what I said about polygamy. The argument against GRA polygamy boils down to two points. 1. A father who marries a minor daughter is wrong. This is covered by existing age consent and enforcement laws. 2. Increased chance of genetic disorders. I see this as a nod and connection to my previous position of rationalizing emotional bias. Those who adopted Argument 2 would not want to forbid 40-year-old mothers or those with genetically "bad" genes from having children. Another example of hypocritical and emotional thinking about sex and justice. Addendum 3: Anyone who mentions underage marriage misses the mark in several ways. First, it doesn't matter, because such things are already covered by existing consent and compulsory laws. Just because incest is wrong, it misses the point to say that incest and underage marriage are also wrong. Second, I would like to point out that not only is polygamy right or wrong, but that most people, including the GRA community, are inconsistent in their thinking. It's a mixture of personal preference and legality. That's the problem. A statement that makes people feel repulsed by pedophilia by emotionally denouncing underage marriage is a perfect example of what is wrong. EDIT 4: The view has changed. uDocTorrFabulous convinced me not to generalize about the community due to some negative experiences. I still have thoughts of hypocrisy, but not of its prevalence. Hello CMV users! This is a footnote from the moderator. There are a few things to keep in mind. First, don't forget to [READ THE RULES]. If you find an incorrect comment, reporting it is more effective than rejecting it. Speaking of which, [downvoting doesn't change my mind]! If you're thinking of submitting a CMV yourself, check out the Popular Topics Wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to send us a message. Enjoy your CMV! | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
I am very happy to revisit CMV for further introspection. This is a continuation of a series of threads (including an earlier related CMV). If you haven't attended any of the events, you can do so using the links below. I will not vote for individuals whose administration believes [committing or complicit in crimes against humanity]. In general, I do not choose representatives, candidates I do not believe to be credible and viable. I don't think we're setting the bar too high. Basically, buried in one of these threads is someone telling me, "If you don't come up with ideas for election reform (OPA's own), you (I) are just a troll." Here are the conclusions I've come to so far: 1) The first and most important idea is that electoral reform must benefit from broad consensus. Election reforms that do not meet these standards (such as the current version of the voter card) should be rejected, perhaps for that reason alone. 2) Any electoral reform must be considered justified in accordance with Section 1. On that basis, I consider her CFR ineligible. On the other hand, we must protect ourselves from foreign forces that influence politicians through financial support, and from turning the political process into a haven for money laundering. These concerns lend great credibility to efforts such as pushing legislation on the Disclosure Act (2010-2011). These efforts must be balanced with concerns that key funders may be targeted by partisan activists. I myself am acquainted with donors who have received death threats and have been otherwise targeted on the basis of their affiliations (democrats and libertarians, I haven't had the pleasure of being acquainted with Republican donors at the higher tiers, but I'm told and have seen reporting that such donors as Sheldon Adelson and the like have also be targeted in a like manner.) 3) Felon disenfranchisement threatens to destabilize our nation and therefore offers us an existential threat. Felons ought to be offered the chance to regain their franchise after a 'clean' 15 years (or something.) Felons who offer their service ought to be able to regain their franchise in a reduced period of time (perhaps ten years.) This would have the added benefit reducing recidivism (hopefully.) 4) The Committee on Presidential Elections Debates is an obvious target for election reforms. 5) Term limits are a viable option for election reform, but must be pursued only in a manner consistent with point (1). It should be remembered that term limits by themselves offer us little, and would only be meaningful in the context of a more comprehensive election reform (as a 'one-off' term limits are quite objectionable.) 6) I'm in favor of considering (but not necessarily implementing) 'out of the box' election reform ideas. One such idea would be what I've been calling 'soft' mandatory voting (the term mandatory voting after the policy currently in place in republics such as Australia.) Rather than making non-voters subject to penalty, a policy could be implemented that couples the most basic interactions with government (license for driving, tax deductions, military service) with voting. People who haven't had a chance to vote yet (under 20, of course) may be exempt. All other persons may be excluded from such benefits (which are voluntarily offered) if they do not exercise their right to choose and fully participate in such benefits. This doesn't go against your idea of freedom (correct me if I'm wrong), but it also greatly increases voter turnout. 7) The current state of civic education is terrible. Civics education needs to be a bigger part of the core curriculum (people should be provided with more meaningful ways to understand how to use their voice). This does not mean that "uninformed voters" should be excluded from the electorate. 8) Referendum reform: California (which tends to pass without paying social spending) is a good example of why referendums are not good for all governance issues Some problems benefit from it). Temptation to voice this The so-called 'wedge problem' on the ballot paper is also proving to be a problem. Election reform would help solve this problem. (This list has been cleaned up a bit. It's no longer the original list.) Anyway, thanks for your feedback. | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
The second change might have made sense at a time when flintlocks were still a marginal phenomenon and (in the old world) users of edged weapons always had status. . A time when national sovereignty was not guaranteed. Threat of attack by unknown forces, i.e. "wild Indians", weakened military forces (e.g. overthrown governments), wild animals, royal soldiers, or simply colonialists with other interests or origins made such laws more important. The situation is more reasonable. I understand that, and I know that the United States is now going to remain in this state almost indefinitely. Any blatant attempt to "deprive" this right would go against people's [reactions] ((psychology) and [status quo bias]) (Australia has a ] circumvented this by providing financial compensation to gun owners) was phased out (to somehow avoid the [talent effect], but the United States has a much larger "proud possession" [ platoon], and similar efforts could be [highly controversial].) This, again, does not explain its position. (Completely justified in my opinion) If the war on drugs is any indicator, any ban would only widen the gap between the law and everyday life, but I still believe that the average person cannot hold a gun in their hands. believe to be evil. Countries with laws prohibiting the possession of firearms with very few exceptions (hunting licenses, firearms licenses, collecting licenses). As far as I know, there is no black market for weapons as this has been the case for hundreds of years. Three or four shootings a year attract media attention. As a rule, the perpetrator is someone with a hunting or shooting license. Personally, I have never seen a gun fired, let alone drawn, in public. When a police officer uses a gun in self-defense, it's always a big deal. "Suicide by a police officer" is unknown. Thanks to this situation, I really feel like I live in a peaceful society. I trust (somewhat) the federal [monopoly on the use of force]. The political opinion of the people is represented to the coalition government through the [proportional electoral system]. In this situation, I sympathize with the limited ability of our fellow citizens to rise up and "overthrow" corrupt governments, because there are better ways to bring about "change" in a functioning democracy. To do. To show that this is not a "fake her CMV to display my worldview": Personally, I've always been fascinated by firearms. I also served in my country's military and enjoyed shooting. Because of this, I also own a CO2 pistol (which is legal) and an air rifle. If you can get it legally, you'll also get a "real" firearm. I don't think I would be comfortable if the average misanthropic, bad-natured sociopath had the same access. Nor do we want to risk a “per capita murder rate” that is more than five times lower than the US (despite being seven times more densely populated) by legalizing firearms. TL;DR: If I could magically take everyone's guns, I would. CMV Edit: It's been an interesting discussion so far. I'm going to bed now, so I'll be back in about 9 hours. Edit 2: I'm back. Addendum 3: This discussion appears to be coming to an end. I draw the following conclusions. The best possible argument was how an armed population could hold out in the face of a dysfunctional or hostile government. Neither do I want to give up firearm use in disorderly surroundings for the practical and justifiable reason of "self-defense." However, this point is inconsistent with my premise that I consider the political system in my home country to be mature, stable and not particularly corrupt. My views are less compatible with the libertarian worldview than I thought. I myself seem to be more of a social democrat (following the example of Scandinavia). I gained a better understanding of the thinking behind gun ownership in the United States. Transferring this insight to a European environment is not plausible, but I'll try as much as I can. There seems to be a deadlock here between worldview and social background. | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
Now, since this is such a broad subject, I have to say this first to clarify things before I start here. Decriminalization of street art graffiti does not mean that everything related to it is legal. In my opinion at least, unauthorized use of someone's private property should still be vandalism, and spray painting public property for the purpose of visually damaging it without intent to create art is also acceptable. consider it vandalism. We also don't allow certain types of "vulgar" art. Just like I can't walk screaming "FUCK". I just want to keep these things out of the way as I don't want this discussion to focus on the logistical details of enforcing the law. Obviously, other laws, such as B. Public infidelity. It applies to street art even if the act of street art is legal. My main argument for this is simple. It greatly enriches the public space, makes it more interesting and contributes to its culture. For me it's always interesting to see the street art on the bridges we pass by. Gray walls are very accentuated when you give them something to look at. Imagine a city where graffiti is not only legal, but encouraged. A city filled with art, creations and styles everywhere. Everything is always changing and you can see something new and different every month. It will add to the 'soul' and sense of community that cities usually have. Street art is an important part of culture. It's a way for ordinary people to remember who they are and what they're thinking in a way that everyone can see and enjoy. It is a unique art form that does not require much effort to see and appreciate, unlike music or film. You've probably already seen art on your daily commute. I think the "quality" of graffiti is a common concern. Many would imagine that everyone just scribbles their name all over the place. If anything, it's probably the other way around. Street art is legal, so artists don't have to rush to paint or make a fuss about their work for fear of police eyes. Artists can now take as long as they like to complete their work and perfect every detail. Even for inexperienced taggers, this makes a big difference because they don't have to rush in and out. Also, if you want to make art, even though you may be working in other mediums, and you are very artistic and talented, the fear or legality of someone doing something. , I can also imagine that there are many artists who do not want to do street art out of guilt. Requires sandblasting. Legalizing street art doesn't just mean more art, it means better art. The main reason graffiti is now criminalized is the now despised and widely criticized "broken windows theory". In addition, legalizing street art would also help private owners such as business owners. If street art in public spaces were legal, artists would have a tremendous incentive to avoid spraying private property and instead exhibit their work on public lands such as parks, thereby reducing the cost of cleaning buildings. It will save you time. And finally, I would like to say again that I would like to avoid discussing the operation of the law in this way, but instead the legal street he would like to discuss the idea of art. TL:DR: Street art adds color and atmosphere to cities and enhances culture. This saves artists from having to rush to work to avoid the police and spending almost as much money cleaning spray-painted walls as artists avoiding private property and going out, so more You can give your artist time. Instead, newly legalized public property is out there. Hello CMV users! This is a footnote from the moderator. There are a few things to keep in mind. First, don't forget to [READ THE RULES]. If you find an incorrect comment, reporting it is more effective than rejecting it. Speaking of which, [downvoting doesn't change my mind]! If you're thinking of submitting a CMV yourself, check out the Popular Topics Wiki first. Questions or concerns? Feel free to send us a message. Enjoy your CMV! | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
I don't think that will happen, but just to be clear, there could be spoilers for What We Do In The Shadows and possibly other vampire movie books. My boyfriend and I watched WWDITS, his 2015 documentary about life as a vampire over the weekend (it's awesome, go check it out). We ended up talking about the perks of being a vampire. In many stories there is an attempt, almost an effort, to fabricate some sort of personal or emotional dilemma faced by a vampire (e.g. why he is unhappy). Maybe you miss your family and the sunshine. Likewise, humans actively avoid becoming vampires, even if they have no religious motives at all. It's just that vampires are considered bad. But overall, being a vampire sounds like a great thing. You get a combination (or all) of the following: - Blazing fast. - super strong. - Hypnosis. - Shape shift. - Immortality. - A very small circle of weaknesses: garlic, sunlight, religious iconography. Of course, there are also bad things. Not being able to go out during the day can be frustrating, but you can do it and get used to it. Having to kill people to get blood would be a tall order, but nowadays it's probably easier to get blood voluntarily (See: Blood Banks, Craig's List Madman). Knowledge is starting to get lost, but I think people get used to it and it becomes a small responsibility, unlike a long list of pros. I think the expression of (a) is probably correct that humans are driven into a state of immortality. ) in particular, immortality seems to be the greatest blessing. A lifetime of investing and making money, trying new jobs, specializing in different fields, meeting new people, traveling, and so on. Food sources may be nearby, but they aren't necessarily vigilant when it comes to vampire predators. Once it's revealed, you may be alienated (like True Blood), but let's be completely honest: super-fast, super-strong, immortal creatures why these people think what they're doing. I don't know if you care. Plus, you literally have as much time as you want, so you can wait for policy changes to your heart's content. He can think of two situations where that could be the worst. - Either you become a really small child or you become a really old adult. - Flip over when you just became a middle family. But these seem trivial to me. I don't think vampires intentionally replace children, especially since humans lose people cyclically in their lives, so I think they can get over their first family in the long run. I may be underestimating how far grief lasts, but I don't think so. I don't understand the boredom and frustration of vampires. Why are Bill (True Blood) and Edward (Twilight) generally so sad and brooding? Given the chance, I almost certainly want to be a vampire. EDIT: Distributed some deltas. I don't know how long I'll be there (it's 4pm ET right now), but I'll try to reply as soon as I can when I get home later. - uzevlovaci's delta for drawing comparisons between specific character lamentations and contemporary parallels (e.g., the way we complain about "first world problems", etc.). - uDHCKris' delta for the "what's going on with your soul?" discussion. This was actually more powerful than I initially thought, as I myself am not particularly religious. - delta of udedepricatedzero. Basically, I created a [taxonomy of vampire literature] that shows how the cost-benefit ratio of vampires varies based on personality and traits. Hello CMV users! This is a footnote from the moderator. There are a few things to keep in mind. First, don't forget to [READ THE RULES]. If you find an incorrect comment, reporting it is more effective than rejecting it. Speaking of which, [downvoting doesn't change my mind]! If you're thinking of submitting a CMV yourself, check out the Popular Topics Wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to send us a message. Enjoy your CMV! | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
My reasoning may seem presumptuous, but I will do my best to present my opinion validly and logically. “Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.” This is probably a phrase we have all used or heard in the last few days. It's a phrase meant to end an argument, prevent yelling, and create a compromise for those who just can't agree. There are many examples where this phrase can be used as intended and remains harmless. In such cases, the discussion is based solely on opinions such as chocolate vs. vanilla, hot vs. cold, red vs. blue preference. Another case is when the discussion extends to all other types of contexts and discourses, devolved into mere disagreement, often on some sort of sensory information (tactile, taste, smell, etc.). is involved. Unfortunately, the usage of the phrase "everyone has the right to have their opinion heard" has changed over time and is often used in an instinctive and spiteful way. Judgment becomes dangerous. The thought process behind the hateful and lazy use of the term cuts culture (I speak mostly of the United States, because I am from the United States) from a collective, productive existence. , has allowed itself to fall into a state of circular joke. Here is my proof of the dangers of this expression and its impact on culture. 1. People use this phrase when lazily withdrawing from difficult discussions or unfamiliar areas. They use this phrase to cover up their ignorance and defend their misunderstood beliefs. They spend hours arguing in circles about what they don't know, justifying all their brain waste as "disagreements" on how to live life without breaking their beliefs. 2. The notion of being an "expert" in a subject is no longer valid. This idea is no longer valid because information is so readily available that individuals feel they have enough information to form strong beliefs without being an expert in the field. The precious time a true expert spends in his field (10,000 hours, according to Malcolm Gladwell's excellent book Outliers) is a recognized expertise that is part of our current cultural climate. is offset by the amount of 3. Factual arguments that can be reduced to relative "truths" in the context of the argument are no longer verified. Opinions are taken as facts frivolously disseminated by various news outlets (propaganda organizations). The idea that "everyone has the right to be heard" is the driving force behind the division of cultural beliefs. Appropriate and reasonable arguments are no longer put forward because the opinion is one that does not need to be changed, because everyone has a right to it. There are many other examples, and I will explain them if necessary. In essence, what I am saying is that the thinking behind the term and its misuse are fundamental to many of the political, cultural and social problems that persist (and many of them worsen) over the years. that it is the cause. The idea that everyone is entitled to an opinion that influences their beliefs is absurd and dangerous. As a personal conclusion, I would say that many of the points I made in this article, and many of which I will make in the comments below, are actually hypocritical. Please help me not to be too cynical and break my hypocrisy because I am not innocent of my claims. CMV! PS: If my point isn't clear enough or detailed enough, please ask. I will try to explain better. Hello CMV users! This is a footnote from the moderator. There are a few things to keep in mind. First, don't forget to [READ THE RULES]. If you find an incorrect comment, reporting it is more effective than rejecting it. Speaking of which, [downvoting doesn't change my mind]! If you're thinking of submitting a CMV yourself, check out the Popular Topics Wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to send us a message. Enjoy your CMV! | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
Currently, the poll for the upcoming Scottish independence referendum is about 50-50, which I think is a terrible idea. The whole motivating factor here is outdated racist nationalism. The UK is a fully liberalized democracy with full civil and political rights for all citizens. No one is oppressed by the legal system. There are two prime ministers, one he is from Scotland, and they are equally represented in parliament. Certainly there were some issues in the past, but now they don't exist. The overwhelming majority of those who advocate independence seem to be based on the idea, "Well, that would be great." I haven't heard anything good about the split, and I don't think so given the geopolitical future of independence. The world should be decided by the cleverness of the proposal. So what if Scotland votes for independence? First of all, it would destroy Britain, which is currently the fourth largest military power in the world and a permanent member of the UN Security Council. And this will come at a time when the world is increasingly polarized and Britain is one of the few liberal democracies that still recognizes the need for a strong military force in the world. This would harm British military security and their ability to assist in counter-terrorism operations worldwide or stand up to increasingly bold authoritarian states, like Russia. Furthermore, if Scotland is successful in receiving independence, it would very likely start a wave of secessionist movements across Europe, which if successful, would weaken all of Europe and be a threat to security worldwide, especially given the rapid rise of far-right nationalist movements in almost every country in recent years. Western democracies should be focused on consolidation and working together and political unionization that will benefit them all in the long term and realize there are still real, external threats that are more important than their xenophobia. Also, if Scotland declares independence, England will be left with a much more conservative government with a much greater chance of leaving the European Union, which again would only serve to make the west weaker and could lead to other states following the same course. In Scotland, there are many questions left unanswered, including whether or not they will even be allowed to join the EU and what currency they will use. They plan to continue using the pound, but frankly there is little reason for England to allow it. Overall, even the Scottish Independence Party does not have adequate answers to these questions. Another argument is that Scotland is politically different (more liberal) than Britain, but in a full democracy this doesn't matter. You cannot leave the union just because you don't like the results of the election. It is inherently anti-democratic. Next time we need to try harder to convince the majority to vote for you. This is different in places like South Sudan or Kurdistan, where the national government is authoritarian and the independence struggle is also a movement towards greater freedom and liberty, but this argument does not apply in the UK, where, no matter who is elected, civil liberties will realistically be preserved. The trend moving across Europe in these democratic states is that people are starting again to use elections, not as an exchange of ideas, but as a mechanism for preserving their identity, culture, or religion, which will ultimately have terrible results and cause huge divisions in society. This type of nationalism has been seen before, in the events leading to both World Wars, so before you start to get excited thinking about the possibility of an independent Scotland, just because your one great-grandfather was from there, think about the very serious consequences that could be a result of this referendum. Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. First, don't forget to [READ THE RULES]. If you find an incorrect comment, reporting it is more effective than rejecting it. Speaking of which, [downvoting doesn't change my mind]! If you're thinking of submitting a CMV yourself, check out the Popular Topics Wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to send us a message. Enjoy your CMV! | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
To clarify, the scientific method leads me first to understand the process of knowledge acquisition outlined by Karl Popper. Before the Cognitive Revolution, all life learned through his three-step model of trial and error. 1. I run into a problem. 2. Try to solve the movements. 3. Find a solution. Hopefully, the solution will somehow be remembered, usually through DNA, and that's how knowledge grew. Humanity's cognitive revolution has moved us to his four-step model of knowledge acquisition, which we can understand as a scientific model, but it took tens of thousands of years before this model was formally articulated. 1. Original problem. 2. Develop a theory about the problem. 3. Try to falsify the theory. 4. New problem. This model of falsification allowed people to acquire knowledge on a large scale by allowing experiments to be used to disprove theories. I would argue that it is wrong to say that experiments prove anything. The purpose of an experiment is to disprove, or at least try to, something. Like theories and big rocks, experiments are the means of breaking down theories, and knowledge is the sculpture. In any case, the four-level scientific model is based on using experiments to disprove or at least test theories. In mechanical science, running an experiment requires a calibration process to ensure that the equipment is working properly. Experiments require only one controlling variable. Otherwise, the results may be misleading. This is suitable for more mechanical knowledge areas such as physics, chemistry and even biology. However, with knowledge from other fields such as psychology, economics and politics, adjustment is almost impossible. It is virtually impossible to reproduce the conditions under which other researchers have experimented in these fields. Field research done on these subjects proves this, and behavioral economics shows how ridiculous it is to expect people in the lab to behave like they do in the real world. . Unlike volunteers, the rasp does not behave differently depending on the imaginary social context of the experiment. The area of knowledge where we most need more knowledge is no longer mechanical science. We don't need faster cars or more efficient food production systems. We already possess the environmental mastery and understanding necessary to create the conditions necessary to meet the basic material needs of humanity. The problems we face are cybernetics, economics and politics in terms of how decisions are made within civilizations, psychology, and politics in terms of determining the intangible needs that must be met. It is a matter of philosophy and sociology. It is argued that we can build bridges between mechanical science and broader areas of knowledge along the lines of psychology, neuroscience, biology and physics. However, I'm not sure it can be done in the required time frame and it sounds like science fiction. It seems like a better course of action to consider how improved 'social' science models can be created using 'big data' and 'artificial intelligence'. But this is also like sci-fi. But the only other option is to continue in vain trying to improve upon knowledge acquisition models that only extend machine science knowledge. Two other models of knowledge acquisition are trial and error (which, while very robust, is bad for individual species and life types, let alone individuals themselves) and, frankly, nonsense. Given that it's a religious revelation, I don't know what to suggest. . TL:DR Science is based on "laboratory" experiments, or assumptions based on observations or hypotheses proven irrefutable in the laboratory. "Laboratory" experiments are not possible in the most demanding social sciences. Hello CMV users! This is a footnote from the moderator. There are a few things to keep in mind. First, don't forget to [READ THE RULES]. If you find an incorrect comment, reporting it is more effective than rejecting it. Speaking of which, [downvotes don't change my opinion]! If you're thinking of submitting a CMV yourself, check out the Popular Topics Wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to send us a message. Enjoy your CMV! | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
First off, this is coming from someone who sucks at math, not a self-righteous STEM major (I'm starting college in a few weeks and haven't decided on a major yet). . Even when I had a tutor to stop by before class and ask the teacher for extra help, I always did poorly in math classes throughout the school. The only thing I did well in math was when I had a teacher to teach me later graded reports and post-graduation exams, not accuracy. I stick to my opinion because mathematics seems to me to be the best of the true subjects when I compare it to other subjects. Science, Technology, and Engineering (the rest of STEM subjects) are all heavily based on mathematics, and without a good knowledge of mathematics, one cannot be successful in any of these subjects. I look at history and other social studies and see only memorization of facts, dates and concepts. This worries me because these courses were some of the ones I did best, but I'm not sure how useful they would be in the 'real world'. Even the subjects I consider to be the best (English and Literature). ) seems to have little intelligence. Looking at all the English and Literature courses I've taken in school (all with Honors and A.P.), there are no right or wrong answers, as the courses are based on individual opinions of the text. I can justify your answer. I can't think of any other subject that is as effective as this one. I'm good at that subject, but I think it's pretty useless unless you want to be a teacher. I only want to be a teacher if there are no other job opportunities. . When you look at math, you see real skill, not rote memorization or justifying your own opinions. In mathematics, there is only one correct answer (I know there are some exceptions, but that doesn't matter). At least in my school (I just graduated from a relatively small high school with an advanced class of about 120 students) teaching advanced math is a strong predictor of intelligence. People at my school were shocked to learn that I hadn't studied calculus (the highest level of mathematics in school) and hadn't even reached the level that preceded it. My classmates often thought I was smart because I took some non-math AP courses, but I don't feel smart. My grade point average was well below most of my friends because of his lower SAT math scores and grade point average. My lack of math skills indicates my low intelligence and I feel that math is the best way to measure a person's intelligence. I'm very insecure about whether to struggle with a STEM major or study something I'm interested in or what to major in (the idea of doing what I love instead of making money has always haunted me. - STEM majors, I believe math is the best way to measure a person's intelligence, even if it means I'm not intelligent, change my mind! : After reading the comments, I feel like I was wrong, my view is based on the following, actually I'm not very good at math, because I'm much smarter than I am , is often seen in people who say they are good at mathematics. As I mentioned in the comments section, my views were reinforced by higher math level bastards who constantly thrash the higher non-mathematics courses I take. I still believe that math is a strong predictor of intelligence, and I find it difficult for people who are bad at math to prove their intelligence to people who are good at math. As an aside, does anyone have career-related stories? I'm bad at math, so I'm always worried that I have little career potential compared to someone who's good at math. | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
I often see people accusing porn of having a negative effect on viewers and that negative effect on gender relations, especially women's relationships in society. I don't think that's the case, or at least I think it's less guilty than other less despised media outlets. Porn is said to raise men's expectations to unfair levels, but I think the silly nature of porn would prevent such brainwashing. Porn is mostly... silly. People recognize poor acting, outlandish scenarios, and cartoonishly engaging caricatures. Porn doesn't try to be real, and even if it tries to be real, it fails. The acting is poor, the writing is cheesy (often intentionally), the situations are sometimes quirky, and it's always quirky that these encounters lead to sex. People realize how wrong it is, especially if they themselves are not virgins. When I go to see a doctor, I don't expect a nurse to wear revealing clothes and press her big breasts into my face. I would be even more surprised if the nurses stared me in the eye more than they should because they didn't think I was avoiding them on purpose. I was pulled over by an attractive police officer, but I didn't expect it to lead to sex, even if I was Zac Efron. Not only is the situation, characters, dialogue, and "plot" completely ridiculous, but the sex itself is a farce. Even if you've only had sex a few times, you know that "sex" in porn is like a sword fight in a movie or driving a rally monster truck. It's all for show. Some might think that's how sex is done in porn, some might think Game of Thrones sword fights are accurate, but once you do a sword fight, you'll know right away. deaf. The focal point of the objection is the fact that this creates unrealistic expectations of what women should look like. Movies and TV turned out to be the worse culprits. Again, porn is not realistic and women in the porn industry often dress and make up in ways that make girls look dirty (in many ways) in public. Girls are often perceived as attractive or hot in these videos. TV shows and movies don't often acknowledge that actresses are beautiful, they're just beautiful. Girls are often portrayed as "normal" people. In this sense, the problem is probably more serious for men. People also complain about expectations like a full shave. First of all, shaved pussy isn't a dimple, and it's not just the product of a lucky few. Men's beards are often portrayed as unshaven or well-groomed, but in real life, I've seen beards that are mottled or not so great. Shaving your pubic hair is not double D boobs and men are expected to do it too. Overall, most people don't want to be associated with grassland runners. Especially since grassland runners are the sickest and have the dirtiest fur. The porn I watch recognizes women's attractiveness more than TV or movies. They would say that women don't often have curvaceous, slender figures, neat makeup, and big, shapely buttocks. Men aren't always aesthetically pleasing, and even with training, they can end up with muscular eyes. The fat dad looks like Tyler Durden's body type. Men don't have broad shoulders and don't have a tall, wide V shape. And I can't even begin with cock size. In film and television, men are even less likely to be perceived as having above-average good looks than girls. Girls aged 7 to 9 are portrayed as average, but men aged 7 to 9 are similarly often portrayed as clumsy men who aren't even particularly popular with girls (Smallville, HIMYM, Chuck Such). Hello CMV users! This is a footnote from the moderator. There are a few things to keep in mind. First, don't forget to [READ THE RULES]. If you find an incorrect comment, reporting it is more effective than simply ignoring it. Speaking of which, [downvoting doesn't change my mind]! If you're thinking of submitting a CMV yourself, check out the Popular Topics Wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to send us a message. Enjoy your CMV! | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
EDIT: Apparently there is some confusion. My point is that if society can't afford to fund both libraries and public access to the internet, then public access to the internet should be a priority. This does not necessarily mean that all libraries should be removed. That's why I wrote about examples of libraries that should not be closed (like the Library of Congress). It would be great if society could fund both public libraries and public access to the Internet. I'm not saying all libraries should be done away with, as many people think. Libraries (such as the Library of Congress) do more than just store books. It also serves as a safe haven for culturally significant films and other important artefacts. That's when I got the idea that it would be better to keep digital copies of these movies, books, etc. on the free and open Internet, where society can easily access them. The Internet offers everything a library can do and more. The only exceptions are physical documents that have culturally significant value. That's why I said "shift most resources, not all resources." Only if, for cost or other reasons, it is not possible to fund both the library and the free and open Internet. But let me be clear, I'm not saying that all libraries should be abolished altogether, because some libraries, like the Library of Congress, are absolutely critical. I'm talking about libraries that are already severely underfunded and bankrupt, and many states are facing funding cuts anyway. From there, the focus gradually shifted from physical libraries to online 'libraries'. Instead of allowing politicians to cut funding for these libraries and offer nothing in return, they should redirect these funds to free and open access to the internet for all citizens just like us. How about promoting the conversion to the Internet? The association now provides all members with a library card. Access to library knowledge. Libraries must preserve knowledge and culturally significant artifacts for the future. Well, the Internet can store all the print information that a library has, and even some of it. It also allows information to be shared more quickly with people and a wider audience. I also understand that organizations like [Project Gutenberg] and [this online Internet archive] already offer free books, archival material, and more. However, there is a problem with this. First, this funding is funded by donations, and second, it only covers material whose copyright has expired. We also already offer online courses on the web such as MOOCs and Khan Academy. It makes a lot of sense that in 2015, or even this year, the Internet will be recognized as a useful educational tool. It can be used for entertainment too, but it certainly has educational benefits, and for me it no longer makes sense to focus money on physical libraries instead of the internet. Just as some people prefer paper books to digital copies, traditional libraries are important to certain people, so funding both for the time being would clearly be preferable. If not, I think funding should gradually shift from offline libraries to open internet access for everyone. All I see is that physical artifacts that cannot be stored in such online libraries are donated to publicly funded museums. Or maintain a small set of offline physical libraries to back up materials that cannot be stored online. But to be honest, either way, we already know this will happen at some point in the future. We just have to push to make it happen. And it matters if it happens sooner or later because it makes so much sense on so many different levels. I have a lot more to say on this subject, but I'm waiting for an answer. If you have any problems with this view, please contact CMV. Hello CMV users! This is a footnote from the moderator. There are a few things to keep in mind. First, don't forget to [READ THE RULES]. If you find an incorrect comment, reporting it is more effective than rejecting it. Speaking of which, [downvoting doesn't change my mind]! If you're thinking of submitting a CMV yourself, check out the Popular Topics Wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to send us a message. Enjoy your CMV! | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
CMVers tomorrow. I have a small dilemma that I would like to discuss with you. I hope this is the right place and I feel the need for opposing perspectives on all of this. My son and I are getting married soon. We checked the guest list and noticed we had gays among our family and friends (several lesbians and her one gay). We are both atheists and do not hold any religious views. However, I have always believed that marriage is a celebration of heterosexual partnership, and seeing men and women dancing and kissing at a wedding is extremely offensive. There is also the issue that one of them is single and likes to seduce other women. I don't know how to deal with her because it can cause huge disapproval from both sides of the family and potentially push us away from family members. I'm also worried that my family might think our wedding was a "shambles" because we invited them from the beginning. My partner and I have already decided not to invite our gay partner because we don't want them at our wedding. As for the rest of the gays, though, I'm still not sure... Anyone want to comment? Postscript: Some people think I'm a terribly homophobic "fanatic". I would like to point out that although I dislike certain groups of homosexual acts, I personally agree that homosexual relationships are just as valid as heterosexual relationships. I hope my friends will be happy together. My main concerns are: 1 - These people are "very gay" because they have a strong interest in gay culture and spend almost the entire wedding to point out that they are gay in heterosexual marriages I am afraid to act. and 2 - That because of the above, my family members won't remember my and my fiancee's special day as a wonderful memory to be cherished, but a shambles that's best left forgotten, shame on ILikeFoodLots for letting his wedding go on this way... I appreciate that these people are bigoted, but they are my closest family all the same and I want to make them feel special with us. EDIT 2 I have to go now but thanks to everyone who contributed, even those who were somewhat negative, everyone is entitled to their opinion! I've enjoyed this and can honestly say my view has been changed. I've given the delta to those who I think helped but please let me know if I mistakenly missed you. I won't be able to respond any more but please feel free to continue to post, I may be able to come back and talk some more later, however again I'd say that for now I think my problems are on the way to being resolved and I now see how wrong I was in my old view. I talk to the partygoers who might cause a ruckus and ask them to take it easy for the day. Just like heterosexuals behave the same way. I would like to point out that my emphasis on them is not because they are gay, but because they are acting as human beings. We will also speak to our family to let them know that this is our decision and that we want them to support us on the big day. I hope it's okay that I'm overreacting. But if so, I think many are right when you say that excluding people speaks far worse of me than ever thought. Thank you everyone. I hope you have a prosperous, happy days and a wonderful life :) Hello CMV users! This is a footnote from the moderator. There are a few things to keep in mind. First, don't forget to [READ THE RULES]. If you find an incorrect comment, reporting it is more effective than rejecting it. Speaking of which, [downvoting doesn't change my mind]! If you're thinking of submitting a CMV yourself, check out the Popular Topics Wiki first. Questions or concerns? Feel free to send us a message. Enjoy your CMV! | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
Facebook: Facebook is full of people trying to promote their lives. Sometimes a blatant misunderstanding of their failed lives. Facebook also makes misrepresentation easier by allowing users to control every aspect of what they see, but it also exposes them to the wrath of everyone around them. In doing so, the Circle and its ease of operation inadvertently place great value and advantage on following the general opinion of the Circle. Recording conversations and messages also makes it harder to keep secrets. In my opinion, this means that users are more likely to be untruthful about certain topics. People never become real friends, even if they have goodwill and acquaintances. On the surface it all looks fun, but when it comes to deciphering what's real and what's not, it gets a little fuzzy and cumbersome for some, and more importantly, Facebook's value proposition. lowers the Twitter: Twitter is an ephemeral medium for breaking news and events very quickly. The good thing about Twitter is that it focuses more on breaking news and content than on connections. Then people are more free to say whatever they want, knowing that they will forget anyway. Unfortunately, the emphasis is on comedy, extremes, and shock effects rather than actual information. Google: Google's value is superficial on many subjects, but when it becomes a real source of information, unpopular searches, or answers to many questions, its value decreases. The problem is that very few people actually know anything about most topics, but Google searches are based on popularity. So if other people aren't looking for something, you won't find it. This also means that only popular answers are available for queries and unpopular answers are not. This may seem a little shaky in some cases, but there are many cases where the situation clearly doesn't matter. Reddit: It's a little ironic to use Reddit to talk about how awful Reddit is, but I guess that's what Reddit is for :) If I forget to post this post, my point of view will change quickly, but 1 One question is what's interesting on Reddit. As Google says, the correct answer to many questions is not popular. The answer isn't necessarily unpopular because people reject it, but because few people know it, and sometimes it's the opposite of conventional wisdom. Reddit is therefore inherently buggy and all unpopular opinions are lost or even disappear from view. It's hard to blame any of these media because it's so hard to sift through unpopular opinion and decipher reality. And why people still have jobs. After all, all of these media encourage the creation of popular content over unpopular content. Fundamentally, the value of information can be questioned or even jeopardized because successful falsification of facts is often more valuable than the truth. Of course, if few people know the truth. EDIT: A user pointed me to Google Scholar. Great resource. thank you. Parameters: Some people complain about moving goalposts. Each of the listed media values popularity, and that's the law in this country when it comes to entertainment. So even Facebook and Twitter aren't completely abominable. Of course, the risk of making the wrong connection is a risk, but sometimes it's not. The problem is to consider all areas of knowledge and understanding. In any subject or field, we find that very few people have knowledge or understanding of the subject. That means the public is largely ignorant. Google performs searches and queries based on popularity. Therefore, both Google and other companies are fundamentally flawed when it comes to gaining "deep" understanding, understanding beyond the surface level. There is not much discussion of information as it is a superficial or peripheral understanding. For example, if you drop an apple, it will fall to the ground. Someone posted a Google Scholar. Still, Google Scholar ranks by citation, which is basically based on popularity. When Scholar is based on citations, Google is better than regular Google at searching scholarly articles. However, it still tends to be popular. In my opinion, this means that Google has created something that is inherently flawed but still very useful. Change your perspective and prove that using popularity as a metric is the way to gain deeper understanding. AndOr's use of popularity as a metric poses no real risk of circumventing or eliminating elements of truth or understanding. | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
EDIT: Title should read: Triggers, in the way they are currently being (mis) used to represent things that cause discomfort or sadness in people, are not a real thing. People who cry'triggered' because something reminds them of a NON EXTREME incident or issue they are struggling with should not be sheltered or given the attention they are seeking. EDIT 2: For some reason I feel that not everybody finished reading my post although theres a tl;dr and a very clear message that my views dont apply to extreme cases like in people who have PTSD yet Im getting all these (actually heartwrenching and very valid arguments) about people with PTSD whom my beef isnt with. EDIT 3: All in all I think my anger towards modern day'trigger happu tumblrinas' has somewhat subsided and Im beginning to understand that we cant scruitinise how everybody feels and that some people are stronger than others like one user said and that the effects of triggers on some people can be deadly. Thank you all!:) In 7th and 8th grade I was a snob. Maybe part of that is because I'm the youngest of five and was much better looking than my classmates (before acne, poor eyesight, and crooked teeth). I realized this because my classmates talked about me and treated me. I was able to use my eighth grade summer to transform myself into someone else. I can't remember exactly how I did it, but I did. Everyone, myself included, was amazed at how permanent and real the change was. Unfortunately, I was no longer a slut, I was a wimp. Shortly after, I was bullied and took a horrifying eight years to graduate. During those eight years or so, my first love died in a car accident, her parents had a terrible accident that left her mother unable to walk for a year, and of course I started smoking. , went on to date men on a regular basis. My treatment for trying to get good grades in college got worse and worse. Tuition became too expensive for my parents and one job was not enough to support me. Added to this was the religious battle between me and my society and my own mother. My mother didn't speak to me for 3 months while I lived in the same house (I was dating a black man) because of my religious and romantic choices. . , and you become a pretty broken person. I believed no one. Naive, nervous, insecure, people-loving, a bit rowdy and a smoker. I have been in situations I never wanted to be in, doing things I never thought I would be doing. I was even ashamed of my own psychologist whom I never went back to visit after a couple of sessions because of how fucked up I was. My issues seem trivial but these are just the things that I haven't blocked out. My view does apply to individuals who have gone through everything but EXTREME trauma. My POINT is: How can I, and so many people who have gone through worse, emerge as functional if not even better people than we were because of what we went through by using our own logic and reasoning, the help of others, counselling and other resources, while others simply act as if life is supposed to be somehow tailored for them and that whatever'triggers' them by making them actually have to THINK about what they went through should somehow be erased from their lives? Tl;dr: Shit happens in life and people should wade through the pile of crap and come out as functional human beings via their own logic rather than project their issues unto others and claim that whatever'triggers' them to think about their problems must somehow be banished or banned. Hello CMV users! This is a footnote from the moderator. There are a few things to keep in mind. First, don't forget to [READ THE RULES]. If you find an incorrect comment, reporting it is more effective than rejecting it. Speaking of which, [downvoting doesn't change my mind]! If you're thinking of submitting a CMV yourself, check out the Popular Topics Wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to send us a message. Enjoy your CMV! | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
I am 33 years old and hope to one day have a happy family and children. I'm in no rush, but lately I've been taking things more seriously and thinking more seriously about what's important to me. For me, I have come to the conclusion that physical appearance is most important in a partner, not because I am superficial or superficial, but because physical appearance is the best indicator of overall health, intelligence, and decision-making disposition. because I believe it is. who you meet. Let me elaborate... First, let me clarify that "appearance" is subjective, objective, and universal. Proper symmetry, youthfulness (high fertility), and good health are things that most people find attractive. Others, such as race, hair color, and body type, are completely subjective. I think that beauty is what makes men naturally attracted to women, and there are good reasons for that. Beauty indicates good health, fertility, good genes, intelligence, good decision-making, and the subjective part of my appearance probably has to do with traits that align well with my own genes. First and foremost, I want my children to be healthy, intelligent, athletic and loving people. I believe that a person's outward appearance is a pretty accurate indication of who they are on the inside. There are always exceptions to rules. For example, injured people, sick people, etc., but I think this is generally true. I will continue with why looks are important to me. Youth: A woman is most fertile between the ages of 20 and 35. I've always found women in their 20s to her early 30s most attractive. This coincides with the zone of high fertility in women, increasing the chances of conception and reducing the risk of birth defects. Symmetry: I'm not picky about it, but scientific studies show that facial symmetry is a good indicator of good genes. Body Type: I am attracted to toned, curvy women. It's subjective when it comes to looks, but there's a scientific basis behind it. I don't blame skinny or over-muscled women. It is also known that women with less body fat do not menstruate and have lower fertility. Also, I don't find overweight women attractive. This could be a sign of poor impulse control, possible hormonal imbalances, declining intelligence, or anything else you don't want your children to inherit. I'm drawn to curves, but both large breasts and a plump butt seem to me to be sexual fertility signals for a fit, healthy woman. Breasts indicate a woman's ability to support her newborn, while things such as the shape and size of the buttocks may indicate fitness levels that may be related to gender and reproduction. Intelligence: I believe that I can read people's feelings more through their eyes and body language than through their words. Both of these are subsets of "appearance". Most of our communication is said to be non-verbal. You can often tell what a person is by their appearance. Perhaps they are smart but socially inept, or they cannot think abstractly but are very socially savvy. It looks like a clue to how the human brain works. Temperament: I believe that a person's temperament can be seen as loving or malicious, benevolent or heartless. However, this is a bit complicated and may not be obvious at first glance. It takes a long time and many meetings to find out how a person's appearance reflects their temperament. In conclusion, I would like to say that looks are the most important thing for me. And by looks, I don't mean the kind of objectified woman most men would consider the most attractive thing ever. Appearance means my own subjective fascination with a particular woman's appearance and the message her appearance conveys to me. Probably most men are like that. Because most men are subjectively honest when they say "she's beautiful" to their women. Hello CMV users! This is a footnote from the moderator. There are a few things to keep in mind. First, don't forget to [READ THE RULES]. If you find an incorrect comment, reporting it is more effective than rejecting it. Speaking of which, [downvoting doesn't change my mind]! If you're thinking of submitting a CMV yourself, check out the Popular Topics Wiki first. Questions or concerns? Feel free to send us a message. Enjoy your CMV! | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
First of all, I would like to say that I am in favor of maternity leave. My argument is against federal or state law mandating it. By making the distinction that it should not be a blanket law, but rather an employer's choice, we show that it can be beneficial in some circumstances and detrimental in others. increase. Let's start with the positive. For example, let's say CNN granted Erin her girlfriend Burnett maternity leave. If you're a viewer like me, you know that Erin had a baby a few months ago. She took a break from her cable news show, Erin Burnett: Outfront. I don't think I know the terms of her leave, but I do know that CNN has decided to continue her show so she can return. I think this is a win-win. 1) Erin can have time to take care of her baby without worrying about her losing her job. 2) CNN retains proven contributors of value. CNN may temporarily lose some of the viewership Mrs. Barnett is amassing in the short term, but it will retain it in the long term. But on the other hand, imagine that you have just opened a small bakery. You're in your first year of business, still in the red with bank loans, and striving for a profitable business. They employ women who work at the cash register and in the store. She may be a good employee, but realistically speaking, her job doesn't require any special skills. She's not Erin Burnett. If she leaves, someone can be trained in her place. But when she becomes pregnant, the law puts her at a disadvantage. 1) You can cover shifts by yourself or with other employees, but it puts a strain on the company. Things aren't done when they should, morale is low and everyone is exhausted. Customers are dissatisfied and choose one of the competitors. 2) As mentioned above, you can take the time to interview and train your replacement talent. But despite the guaranteed dismissal, it is very unlikely that you will find someone who is a good worker and willing to work. Moreover, the more mistakes that person makes while learning, the more the business suffers. They are likely to suffer losses related to their circumstances that have led them to accept such poor working conditions. The costs of long-term employment are justifiable, but short-term employment is at a disadvantage. In my view, employers should be free to assess the cost of maternity leave to their businesses and act as they see fit. In my opinion, given a situation similar to Erin Burnett's pregnancy, a good employer would do the same with CNN. But I don't think an entire company should be asked to put up with one employee's detriment, especially if it's not worth it in the long run. It's incredibly hard to keep a business going. The need for maternity leave is just another factor that gets you in the way when you don't need it. It is vitally important for the economy that we do our best to promote it, not hinder it. Needless to say, it undermines equal opportunity efforts. Employers now have a choice between men who do not need to take time off and women whose business could be adversely affected by possible pregnancy. thank you for reading! I hope it will be an opportunity to change my point of view. EDIT: Some users have pointed out that the government has a vested interest in procreation, which generally overrides the rights of employers. For me it makes sense. Check out their comments below. Hello CMV users! This is a footnote from the moderator. There are a few things to keep in mind. First, don't forget to [READ THE RULES]. If you find an incorrect comment, reporting it is more effective than rejecting it. Speaking of which, [downvoting doesn't change my mind]! If you're thinking of submitting a CMV yourself, check out the Popular Topics Wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to send us a message. Enjoy your CMV! | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
I think health insurance in this country is completely abused and distorts the very concept of insurance. By definition, insurance is a calculated form of risk management that protects consumers from unexpected losses in the event of an emergency or disaster. For example, people take out car insurance to cover damages from car crashes and other traffic accidents (whether car insurance should be made mandatory is a separate debate in itself). Such events are unexpected and do not occur regularly for drivers. If not, the insurer will either a) raise premiums to reflect the increased risk, or b) deny coverage outright if it determines that the risk is too high. However, what auto insurance does not cover are maintenance costs such as tire, oil and brake changes, and smog checks. If we had to cover the bill (or at least part of it) every time someone did one of these things, we would be forced to raise premiums to remain profitable. But when it comes to health insurance, insurers often have to cover a portion of the cost of everything from simple doctor visits to things like massage therapy and chiropractic care (at least in part). health insurance does). I believe that because health insurance is overused for its intended purpose (whether for private policyholders or taxpayers in single-payer countries), health care costs continue to rise and are out of control. (see Section 1). system is available). By the very definition of insurance, insurance should be limited to coverage for true medical emergencies such as cardiac arrest, septic shock, and motor vehicle accident injuries. For this reason, in the United States, it is common for insurance companies to set limits on policyholders (limits on the number of doctor's visits, drugs covered by insurance, etc.) and what doctors must not do. I work in a hospital and I see situations like this all the time. I'm not defending the health insurance industry or its practices, I just want to at least partially explain why this cost issue exists. When politicians and the public talk about "uninsured" and try to mandate insurance, they are doing nothing to help the insurance companies and not to help patients and healthcare workers. I think not. I am not advocating abolishing health insurance altogether, but I believe that its use should be limited and not arbitrarily expanded to cover all illnesses. Its purpose is to protect people from legitimate medical emergencies such as those described above, and I believe it should be used in such situations. For the majority of healthcare needs though, such as routine visits to the doctor's office or care, I think a better alternative is the use of health savings accounts (HSAs). If we take health insurance companies out of the picture, and stop requiring employers to provide coverage (the cost of which is withheld from their employees' salaries), people will have more choices when it comes to their healthcare and won't be burdened by the arbitrary decisions insurance companies have to make for them. Of course there will be those people who would rather use that additional money towards other things, but most people would agree that regardless of their current state of health, having a health insurance in case shit hits the fan would be a "smart" thing to do. Naturally, the downside is that there is going to be a rather large disparity in costs to individuals, as some people have pre-existing conditions that make them higher-risk and more expensive to insure in the long run (i.e. you are diabetic, overweightobese, are a smoker, etc). I understand that healthcare in the US is a highly convoluted topic and that there are other things that factor into the problem of a "broken healthcare system" (lawsuits, defensive medicine, equipment costs; the list goes on) My main point is that expanding insurance coverage, whether through mandate (i.e. PPACA or "Obamacare or through a complete overhaul like the proposed single-payer solutions are short-sighted solutions and are only going to add to the problem of rising costs because the modern system of health insurance is inherently flawed. I believe that more individual purchasing power and choice through something like the HSA would be fairer, ultimately leading to better outcomes and less bureaucratic nonsense in healthcare. | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
Video-inspired title [Paid Writers] This post has been split into three subreddits to reach the widest possible audience. I chose these three subreddits because two of them concern readers and writers, and "Change My View" is the de facto subreddit dealing with controversial views. ...I think. Where do I start? Start with my inspiration. I recently made a plagiarism (or rather, a copy) as an example of a crowdfunding site offering to plagiarize other books for a fee. I hope this alone sheds some light on my take on plagiarism. It is an aborted offspring in a literary genre that might have been great had it lived. For the average person, that might just mean 'copy'. And I would argue that "copy", though corrupt, is accepted in the world of writing. Even illegal writing practices such as the use of free amateur copycat scripts and the hiring of ghostwriters show some respect for the "talent" that produced the product. But isn't it in worse taste than plagiarism? In the eyes of the reader, not subjective moral standards. Parodies, ghost-written tales, everyday hackjob cliches...all of these are well done, although their efforts aren't always respected...simply "copy to a new and forgotten level." The goal is to bring them out of the competitive structure of lighting. So if this were an RPG, there would be a leveling system. Something that makes the best work a scapegoat and creates a new generation of fans competing for the same quality. Meanwhile, at best, a new world has emerged from this "copy comparison". It is not the same possibility as plagiarism. What does that mean? If plagiarism just means copying, then it's an act of hacking worse than copying a book. But if plagiarism were to qualify as a competitive art, wouldn't it be the literary equivalent of a naming contest to determine the best author who could rename a character, technique, motif, or plot twist? Isn't art the only key to making remastered literature? Does anyone try to copy beyond copying instead of just trying to copy? It's easy to confuse this definition with remixes, so don't let this stop you. My definition is not a remix because the ultimate goal of a remix is to become a different product. It is equivalent to a collage or another dimension. The aim is not to copy the text "heartfelt" and make this process a template for a "one person's view" of the literature. I think the last word "template" is closer to my reasoning than the word "remix", but templates are meant to fill the gaps that the written work generalizes. Plagiarism touches on areas you don't want to touch for fear it's not a template. Now that I've talked about possibilities, here's my crappy video game analogy. A remix, a parody, a clone - playing them "reminds" you of something else A plagiarized work done well is like having a game installed with DLC and put into a different skin before you played the un-modded game The second, done well, is clearly the more "brand new" presentation to the viewer. When I say pay though, I don't just mean "hand them some cash." I think what plagiarism needs to rise up from its superstitious cursed tomb is to be paid in value based on a set of plagiarism parameters. One in particular being how similar the original work is to the plagiarized work. I wish I can show you the link to my plagiarized crowdfunding site so I could have a specific example of how changing a few words...done enough times and from someone lacking in writing talent...can in turn create an altogether new fiction with its own feel but with the same text pattern as the plagiarized work but alas I defer to you redditors for an example. I would like to point out however that the Bible did not become this big mystical book without the tamperings of parts here and there and then another do over when the religion itself gets established and then another do over as researchers find suitable interpretations. Everything is done under the guise of historical accuracy. | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
I do this from a first person perspective because I know what I like and can easily communicate it. Admittedly, much of what I mention is tailored to my taste. However, I think these are pretty generalizable. There are many benefits of being rich. I was able to avoid work I didn't want to do, or to abandon it entirely if I felt like it. And let's be honest, for many of us, work is work. Even the people I talk to who claim they enjoy their job often complain about it. It seems like the rare exception to finding someone who truly and deeply loves what they do. It's hard to find your dream job, and there's a good chance you'll have to settle for less than that, basically as long as you're working for what you pay. Then there are all the gadgets I could have. I'm still studying, so I consider myself very lucky to have been able to switch to a second car. The first one had all the features I needed, but the radio was broken, the acceleration was bad, and the interior was in tatters. My new one has a better stereo, more comfortable seats, better acceleration, and the interior is still in good shape. You don't always notice these things, but it often makes driving a lot more fun than before. Well, I am very happy to have a wonderful radio. With millions, not only could we get a better car, perhaps even more fun to drive than we have now, but we could also improve our lives through all sorts of other devices. I think you will enjoy it very much. Already enjoying the taste of fine sake. Any Scotch fan out there who would like to know how good the 200 is compared to the Laphroaig 10, for example? Or what about a nice laptop? What I have now serves my needs perfectly and I'm very happy with it, but if I had something better it would have allowed me to do all sorts of things I can't do now and I'd be even happier. will be For example, you can play graphics-intensive video games or enjoy faster SSD boot times. Sure, the glamorous novelty factor associated with toys like this wears off eventually, but even though my car is no longer a popular new toy, I still appreciate my car stereo. increase. And I think I will continue to appreciate that for as long as I own my car. Likewise, whether there's a shiny new element or not, I always weigh the complexity of my theoretical favorite 200 Scotch over the flavors of current varieties. And again and again, you'll appreciate having an SSD in your laptop for faster boot times and a slight but consistent convenience. Finally, I think the most compelling argument that wealth leads to greater happiness is the enormous opportunity it presents. For example, one of the best times I had recently was on a trip to Europe. It took me a while to save money for that, and I don't think I can do it that often. oh did i still love it With $10 million, you can take trips like this whenever you want. Maybe 10 trips will tone down the experience a bit, but it's still much better than not traveling often. And yes, I know I can travel cheaper. But most of the fun I got from traveling was eating good food, doing expensive touristy things, and wasting money of all kinds. I think I'm not alone in this. With millions of dollars at our disposal, we will be able to experience these wonderful life experiences far more frequently and in a greater variety than we do now. Therefore, I think that this alone could significantly improve the quality of life. Now change your mind. I have heard many times in my life that money does not make people truly happy. I clearly disagreed with that statement and gave my view. Are you trying to convince me that I'm wrong? | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
Note before reading: Please do not downvote my comments or answers based on your disagreement. I have attended several CMVs, but my opinion was clearly in the minority and was rejected at nearly every entry. Due to Reddit's karma system, low karma means you have to wait 7 minutes before replying, making it harder to reply to everyone (more karma means less time to wait). post office). If I act like an idiot to you, act irrationally, or say something logically wrong, please reject me. But I want to be able to discuss it with anyone and not be put off by my inability to respond (so I can hear the answer). OK, my point of view. I am not concerned that the US government is spying on its people for the following reasons. 1. I don't necessarily have "nothing to hide", but literally someone sitting in front of a computer looking at my posts (or whatever porn I watch) on Reddit, Twitter, or Facebook. I don't expect you to. I have some personal things that I don't want real people to know or see through, but I'm using the CTRL-F function to search for terrorist activity and other organized illegal activities. has no resistance at all. Do not commit serious crimes. I know a lot of people are concerned that governments will show people illegally downloading torrents or watching movies illegally on the internet, but how widespread this is happening? , and considering how non-existent individuals are being prosecuted for that offense based on government capacity, , seeing this doesn't worry me. I don't do drugs, but if I do drugs and try to buy them on FB or SMS, the government won't care. For example, we have trees, thousands of people openly committing minor misconduct, but the government is unwilling to arrest them. 2. I remember hearing during Rand Paul's filibuster that terrorism was deterred by the government spying on its citizens. I believe that state espionage still has a deterrent effect (terrorists cannot use the media to communicate, which makes it difficult to carry out terrorist activities). I also heard that the government used espionage to fight organized crime during the filibuster. I'm not involved in organized crime, so I'm not worried about that. (I'd like to point out here that this isn't really about what sympathy or empathy for criminals or what the right to privacy should be, it's just my concern about being spied on. .) I don't think the NSA is spying. A drug lord is very different from a wiretap or an undercover agent. 3. Moreover, I believe that Islamic extremism has become a legitimate threat to the United States since the international attacks by ISIS (or at least ISIS-inspired radical Islamists). Some Americans have fought for attacks by ISIS and local Islamist militants and believe the US should be able to spy on their communications. They claim there are thousands in the US, which may be an exaggeration, but I don't think it's incredible considering 150 went to Syria to fight for ISIS. :). If many people are willing to travel to other countries to fight other countries, it is no surprise that they are more likely to stay in the United States to fight to carry out terrorist activities. easier. Four. I am not concerned about the government knowing my political views. I post them publicly on Facebook, but given how committed our country is to free speech and how many political parties there are, I don't think dissent would threaten my well-being. Is not ... Hello CMV users! This is a footnote from the moderator. There are a few things to keep in mind. First, don't forget to [READ THE RULES]. If you find an incorrect comment, reporting it is more effective than rejecting it. Speaking of which, [downvoting doesn't change my mind]! If you're thinking of submitting a CMV yourself, check out the Popular Topics Wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to send us a message. Enjoy your CMV! | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
Attitude: I am currently a student who has finished my 4th year. 22 years old. Background: I am a typical Asian American and grew up in a traditional Asian family. My parents immigrated from Asia to give their children (me) a better future in America. The pressure from my parents to get me into a successful, high-paying job so I could retire early instilled in me the idea that time is money. Wasting time means losing potential money. Problem: I started thinking about this in the middle of high school. During this time, I realized why I was wasting my time playing games. Why am I wasting my time with my friends? I was able to spend all my time honing my skills and gaining new experiences. In college, that attitude hit me even harder. I see college students "wasting" time that could be spent socializing, having fun, studying, working, doing something productive. As I grew older and learned more about the opportunities out there, I came to the conclusion that my interests and work ethic suited me well for a career as a Chief Technology Officer. I like the aspects of how science and technology work, and I did a lot of research during my university days. I also like the business side, leadership skills and the challenges that come with it. I am already working hard as a CTO, so I thought this dream position would be a good fit for me as well. Many CTOs have PhDs, so I'm considering a PhD as well. However, PhD students also work 70 hours a week to ensure they graduate on time. As I was preoccupied with this thought, reality hit me. I am also very tired inside. I haven't had a day off in the last two years. I stayed at school during the Christmas break to work on my project. I also worked during spring break. I started my internship at the beginning of summer. As soon as I finished my internship, I went back to school and continued working on my projects. Many of my friends resented my negative attitude that time is money. They want me to go out and have fun, but I pessimistically reminded them that I could be wasting my time having fun and doing something more productive. . I don't have many friends to keep in touch with anymore, so I'm very lonely. In addition, he lacks social skills, and even at the age of 22, he cannot have a first girlfriend or even kiss. (I actually tried to get interested in girls, but my attitude was "I need a girlfriend." That way I could get over this and focus on my career which led to many setbacks.) You can keep doing it.) Now I'm thinking: I mean, I was so focused on my career that I gave up everything else in my life. I'm really struggling to get out of this mindset that I've had for the last seven years. I'm starting to think that if I had to sacrifice another 10 years, I wouldn't want to be a CTO. I want to live a 9am-5pm work life, come home with peace of mind, and change my attitude towards enjoying other aspects of life that I'm currently missing. i hope someone can help me. I'm not worried about my career path after graduation, but I feel very miserable now. Thank you very much! UPDATE Thanks to everyone who helped me solve the problem based on my current view. It's not a 180-degree turn at the push of a button, but rewards and happiness come in many forms, and I hope to evolve into a more balanced human being. Hello CMV users! This is a footnote from the moderator. There are a few things to keep in mind. First, don't forget to [READ THE RULES]. If you find an incorrect comment, reporting it is more effective than rejecting it. Speaking of which, [downvoting doesn't change my mind]! If you're thinking of submitting a CMV yourself, check out the Popular Topics Wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to send us a message. Enjoy your CMV! | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
EDIT: Title should read: Triggers, in the way they are currently being (mis) used to represent things that cause discomfort or sadness in people, are not a real thing. People who cry 'triggered' because something reminds them of a NON EXTREME incident or issue they are struggling with should not be sheltered or given the attention they are seeking. EDIT 2: For some reason I feel that not everybody finished reading my post although theres a tl;dr and a very clear message that my views dont apply to extreme cases like in people who have PTSD yet Im getting all these (actually heartwrenching and very valid arguments) about people with PTSD whom my beef isnt with. EDIT 3: All in all I think my anger towards modern day 'trigger happu tumblrinas' has somewhat subsided and Im beginning to understand that we cant scruitinise how everybody feels and that some people are stronger than others like one user said and that the effects of triggers on some people can be deadly. Thank you all!:) In 7th and 8th grade I was a snob. Maybe part of that is because I'm the youngest of five and was much better looking than my classmates (before I had acne, poor eyesight, and crooked teeth). I realized this because my classmates talked about me and treated me. I was able to use my eighth grade summer to transform myself into someone else. I can't remember exactly how I did it, but I did. Everyone, myself included, was amazed at how permanent and real the change was. Unfortunately, I was no longer a slut, I was a wimp. Shortly after, I was bullied and took a horrifying eight years to graduate. During those eight years or so, my first love died in a car accident, her parents had a terrible accident that left her mother unable to walk for a year, and of course I started smoking. , went on to date men on a regular basis. My treatment for trying to get good grades in college got worse and worse. Tuition became too expensive for my parents and one job was not enough to support me. Added to this was the religious battle between me and my society and my own mother. My mother didn't speak to me for 3 months while I lived in the same house (I was dating a black man) because of my religious and romantic choices. . , and you become a pretty broken person. I believed no one. Naive, nervous, insecure, people-loving, a little rowdy, and a smoker. I have been in situations I never wanted to be in, doing things I never thought I would be doing. I was even ashamed of my own psychologist whom I never went back to visit after a couple of sessions because of how fucked up I was. My issues seem trivial but these are just the things that I haven't blocked out. My view does apply to individuals who have gone through everything but EXTREME trauma. My POINT is: How can I, and so many people who have gone through worse, emerge as functional if not even better people than we were because of what we went through by using our own logic and reasoning, the help of others, counselling and other resources, while others simply act as if life is supposed to be somehow tailored for them and that whatever 'triggers' them by making them actually have to THINK about what they went through should somehow be erased from their lives? Tl;dr: Shit happens in life and people should wade through the pile of crap and come out as functional human beings via their own logic rather than project their issues unto others and claim that whatever 'triggers' them to think about their problems must somehow be banished or banned. Hello CMV users! This is a footnote from the moderator. There are a few things to keep in mind. First, don't forget to [READ THE RULES]. If you find an incorrect comment, reporting it is more effective than rejecting it. Speaking of which, [downvoting doesn't change my mind]! If you're thinking of submitting a CMV yourself, check out the Popular Topics Wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to send us a message. Enjoy your CMV! | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
Note before reading: Please do not downvote my comments or answers based on your disagreement. I have attended several CMVs, but my opinion was clearly in the minority and was rejected at nearly every entry. Due to Reddit's karma system, low karma means you have to wait 7 minutes before replying, making it harder to reply to everyone (more karma means less time to wait). post office). If I act like an idiot to you, act irrationally, or say something logically wrong, please reject me. But I want to be able to discuss it with anyone and not be put off by my inability to respond (so I can hear the answer). OK, my point of view. I am not concerned that the US government is spying on its people for the following reasons. 1. I don't necessarily have "nothing to hide", but literally someone sitting in front of a computer looking at my posts (or whatever porn I watch) on Reddit, Twitter, or Facebook. I don't expect you to. I have some personal things that I don't want real people to know or see through, but I'm using the CTRL-F function to search for terrorist activity and other organized illegal activities. has no resistance at all. Do not commit serious crimes. I know a lot of people are concerned that governments will show people illegally downloading torrents or watching movies illegally on the internet, but how widespread this is happening? , and considering how non-existent individuals are being prosecuted for that offense based on government capacity, , seeing this doesn't worry me. I don't do drugs, but if I do drugs and try to buy them on FB or SMS, the government won't care. For example, we have trees, thousands of people openly committing minor misconduct, but the government is unwilling to arrest them. 2. I remember hearing during Rand Paul's filibuster that terrorism was deterred by the government spying on its citizens. I believe that state espionage still has a deterrent effect (terrorists cannot use the media to communicate, which makes it difficult to carry out terrorist activities). I also heard that the government used espionage to fight organized crime during the filibuster. I'm not involved in organized crime, so I'm not worried about that. (I'd like to point out here that this isn't really about what sympathy or empathy for criminals or what the right to privacy should be, it's just my concern about being spied on. .) I don't think the NSA is spying. A drug lord is very different from wiretapping and sting operations. 3. Moreover, I believe that Islamic extremism has become a legitimate threat to the United States since the international attacks by ISIS (or at least ISIS-inspired radical Islamists). Some Americans have fought for attacks by ISIS and local Islamist militants and believe the US should be able to spy on their communications. They claim there are thousands in the US, which may be an exaggeration, but I don't think it's incredible considering 150 went to Syria to fight for ISIS. :). If many people are willing to travel to other countries to fight other countries, it is no surprise that they are more likely to stay in the United States to fight to carry out terrorist activities. easier. Four. I am not concerned about the government knowing my political views. I post them publicly on Facebook, but given how committed our country is to freedom of speech and how many political parties there are, I don't see dissent as a threat to my well-being. Is not ... Hello CMV users! This is a footnote from the moderator. There are a few things to keep in mind. First, don't forget to [READ THE RULES]. If you find an incorrect comment, reporting it is more effective than rejecting it. Speaking of which, [downvoting doesn't change my mind]! If you're thinking of submitting a CMV yourself, check out the Popular Topics Wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to send us a message. Enjoy your CMV! | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
When I interact with Americans (I live in Canada) they seem like very nice people but I am very afraid something might go wrong. One of the incidents I personally witnessed was when a Texas family from a previous job asked if it was safe for him to walk 5 blocks to the mall to find food. This question never occurred to me. Of course it's safe. What could go wrong? Apparently, many things can go wrong in the minds of many Americans. The whole country seems to be filled with some kind of terror. Earlier this year, a Florida woman was arrested after letting her 7-year-old child play unsupervised in a park and charged with abandonment. A Maryland boy was suspended last year [for chewing pop tarts into gun shapes] and another was suspended in March [for making gun shapes with his fingers] . And the horror doesn't end there. Citizens fear each other and not only are they afraid of the government, but the government is also afraid of the people. With the recent trend of police militarization across the country, this friendly neighborhood cop seems more prepared to take over the city than to keep the peace. Police also assume the worst of people, especially minorities, which leads to "preventive action", the shooting of unarmed civilians. We all know about the shooting of a black teenager in St. Louis last weekend and the protests and riots that followed. If the police who shot him hadn't been so afraid to pull out their guns, perhaps there would have been no city under siege in the middle of the country. This culture of fear has an overall negative impact. Parents do not let their children go out to play because they are afraid that they will be kidnapped by pedophiles or kidnappers. People are arming en masse out of fear of what their fellow countrymen might do to them, resulting in one of the highest per capita gun ownership rates in the world and one of the highest rates of gun violence. It's becoming Unsurprisingly, the high availability of guns has fueled mass shootings, which occur nearly every year in America. To break this chain of fear, the American people must voluntarily trust their fellow countrymen. Just because someone can do bad things doesn't mean they actually do bad things. Just because something bad can happen doesn't mean it will. America isn't as dangerous as people think (at least it wouldn't be if people weren't so afraid of each other) and Americans are generally pretty nice people. You don't need every weapon to protect yourself, and police don't need automatic weapons or full siege gear to get the job done. Finally, you often criticize the media for fear-mongering by promoting mass shootings, reporting on violent crimes, and staging headlines to fuel people's fundamental fears. hey. All this only condemns and scares violence against people and perpetuates many problems. TL;DR: America is a country full of good, kind people. I have met many of you and have never been disappointed. But you and everyone around you needs to realize this and perhaps face your fears more often. Do not leave children unattended. Dispose of your guns and ammunition. Let your kids pretend they're playing with fake guns (that's their culture, after all). Most importantly, ignore the little voices that tell you something is wrong. It's often your reaction to fear that actually causes things to go wrong. Hello CMV users! This is a footnote from the moderator. There are a few things to keep in mind. First, don't forget to [READ THE RULES]. If you find an incorrect comment, reporting it is more effective than rejecting it. Speaking of which, [downvoting doesn't change my mind]! If you're thinking of submitting a CMV yourself, check out the Popular Topics Wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to send us a message. Enjoy your CMV! | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
I have a lot of fun at the expense of people with two surnames. This is a difficult question. Because I believe there should be no social pressure for a woman not to take her husband's last name. Homosexual spouses also have their own challenges. But I think families should have surnames. Otherwise, it will make life difficult for others. A small example is if you work in an industry that involves many names and families and encounters blind people (like me). It is useful to write down in advance who is related to whom on paper. But if a wife and husband choose not to share a surname, may God set a name for your child. Flip a coin to determine your child's last name, if desired. Don't let anyone around him struggle with how to pronounce and write Reginald Henry Lieberman Montgomery. What I use as a metaphor for this is gender pronouns. You have the right to tell me if you are male or female. But if you insist that people around you only refer to yourself by the gender-neutral pronouns Ni, Nem, Nir, then I know nothing about it. . As a counter-argument, I would like to say that taking my wife's surname is unthinkable. And I think I would be a little disappointed if she chose not to receive mine. Also, I can't imagine my child not using my surname. So I can already see some of the hypocrisy. As such, I realize that I am raising a problem for which there is no clear solution. In addition to your counterarguments, I'm also interested in alternative ideas and social constructs that might help level the playing field and prevent me from interjecting. Addendum: Sorry for the delay of a few days as it took me all night and all morning to make emergency calls to my car. Thank you for your reply! Here are some of my views that you changed. Spain 'Murica' The Spanish countries have a definite system that actually applies to what I refer to as 'one surname'. People always take their father's surname and then their mother's surname. Then the child's children will do the same. We provide family history and what to put in your mailbox. What I personally like is consistency. If two surnames were adopted nationally in America, there would be much less of a problem with that. Also, to be clear, my issue with hyphenated surname "biting" does not mean proposing a gentrification of the Krzyszewskis or Cevaprevadumron families of this world. To abbreviate a surname means to distort it. I have no bad feelings towards people with shortened surnames. Of course, my surname was actually gentrified two generations before his. Finally, a very good summary of my American views. While this differs from your true reasoning, these ideas quickly flow into larger debates about name choice, and in my experience it usually boils down to "people naming their children". will be In other words, "The things I like or understand exercise proper agency. 'People who give their children names I don't like or understand are selfish and stupid.'" I didn't say that, but I think it's worth pointing out that there is a deep-rooted cultural bias about names. When it comes to ID badges, we want users to have a choice. But as long as each choice is based on what you find easiest and most convenient. If a stranger's choice isn't based on your preferences, that person is selfish and ruthless. When a family member you don't know fills out a birth certificate, ask first to guess your experience meeting that child at work 20 years from now, and be soulful. Demand second priority to the identity of expressing family in a way. That's fine with me personally. The American feeling that shorter is always better is deep-rooted and probably will remain until death. I mean, at least I can find them, so I know I need to keep them at bay. I will continue to make fun of people with two surnames, but I will make fun of others with the same beliefs. There is no animosity here. Thank you guys! | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
First, let's clearly define what we're talking about. What I'm talking about here is parking in the parking lot, not parallel parking on the street. I will return to the scene. Retreat and drive into place from the front. When you leave the scene, please leave the scene. When parking in the parking lot, you have two options: 1. Return to where you entered the parking lot. Exit and go straight. 2. Enter the parking lot and go straight. Please leave the place when you leave. In my personal driving experience (less than 4 years, so not much), I've found that backing into a parking space is much easier than backing up. Unless someone is an idiot and is chasing you when you are trying to get back in position, you usually have a clear view when backing up. If he is skilled and can handle the side mirrors (!), he can usually reverse in two quick movements and no further adjustments are needed to straighten the car. On the other hand, when backing up, you have to make sure there is no oncoming traffic, which creates a problem because the car parked next to you blocks your view. Most of the time, you'll need to slowly reverse your car to make sure there's no oncoming traffic. And don't be unlucky enough to have a four-wheel-drive car parked next to you. I also found that going straight to the site was harder than I thought. Maybe it's because I'm in an SUV and I can barely see the ground line when driving straight, so the mirrors aren't positioned properly. But when you back up, you can clearly see the line. So the problem here is that when you park in a parking lot, one of them is very easy to get in and out of, while the other is "difficult". Perhaps someone in another world could invent a parking arrangement where both the entrance and exit of the parking lot are easy. But for now, the reset option seems to be either "easy" or "hard". It's easier to pull it out than to pull it in, and put it back in rather than pull it out. It would be more efficient overall if everyone in the parking lot could "get back". Now, for me personally, I think he has two problems with my conclusion (trying to be as unbiased as possible here!): First, in this example [here], the red car You can see that he drove to that place. However, since there are no cars "in front" of the red car, the red car can run away if it wants to. In this case, no difficult driving maneuvers are required. But I would argue that unless the parking lot you're visiting is very busy, don't expect that to happen often. Second, getting in and out is difficult and time consuming for inexperienced drivers. However, depending on the customs in your country, oncoming drivers may be accustomed to giving way when someone backs up from their location. Therefore, the lack of eligibility for some drivers is not a disadvantage for others. On the other hand, if a less skilled driver attempts to back into the vehicle, the oncoming driver must wait until the parked driver has finished. Despite his two points above, I still think it's far more efficient to back up than to park. The world would be a better place if everyone backed up to their parking spaces. CMV please. Hello CMV users! This is a footnote from the moderator. There are a few things to keep in mind. First, don't forget to [READ THE RULES]. If you find an incorrect comment, reporting it is more effective than simply ignoring it. Speaking of which, [downvoting doesn't change my mind]! If you're thinking of submitting a CMV yourself, check out the Popular Topics Wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to send us a message. Enjoy your CMV! | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
This is similar considering the cost of withdrawing coalition forces from Afghanistan and Iraq next year, by winter 2016 at the latest. The United Nations, especially the UK, and even the US, by and large, have a void to do so. fought. It may sound belligerent, but I strongly believe that we should focus on the problem and what is broken and try to fix them. Let's start with the worst. And the worst is North Korea. So why not deal with it? I think it should be dealt with as soon as possible, but of course we are overwhelmed with things like the Middle East and the Commonwealth of Nations. But that doesn't mean we can't deal with them after we leave, we are prepared for that. So like 2020? I can't evaluate objections, so please tell me a few. But first listen to my explanation. First, I can't wait for it. Currently, North Korea is self-sufficient. The leadership was completely successful in crushing any resistance. So don't say there will be a revolution or an uprising or anything like that. Moreover, North Korea is sustainable in terms of supply, so our country cannot survive this North Korea, because no other country can survive it unless it goes back to a feudal medieval system. Therefore, we must accept the fact that there is foreign intervention to end this horror in North Korea. A question arises here. Why wait? The main argument for conflict avoidance in North Korea is loss of life, but I would like to ask, "What is life?" The life of our military? Well, "ground boots" will of course be needed in the military, and probably in the Special Forces after that, but I'm not going to talk much about military strategy, but the North Korean military's superiority on the seas and at sea will make it more likely that the would be able to crush the organized resistance of air. So I may lose the military, but don't get me wrong, I respect them so much and I'm going to join the military. So the loss of a soldier's life does not justify continued terror. So what about the loss of civilian lives? Yes, you have to look at it that way. They all die one way or the other from the pain and fear of this dictatorship. And doing nothing is telling them they won't even get a chance. We sacrifice 100 people for not risking saving the few to save the majority of the population. If we do it right, 100 of North Korea's population will not be killed, eventually North Korea will win the war, those who survived will be released, and North Korea will be able to get back on track. In my opinion, this future is worth it, despite the price paid. One of the biggest concerns people have about military action against North Korea is nuclear weapons. Perhaps, again, North Korea may have it. perhaps. According to our information, North Korea is a fortress, so we won't know until the war begins. It's a risk. But how will waiting solve this problem? The longer we wait, the more likely it is that North Korea will have weapons of mass destruction. Therefore, the sooner you act, the greater your chances. No survivors. Kim Jong Dynasty holds total power, never ends, and never relinquishes power without a fight. So why wait? Even if the Kim Jong family dies, the power will be transferred to someone else. This never ends and is an eyesore to mankind. If it ends, there will be mass death, and it must be death. So do it now to minimize that death. We must withdraw from the Middle East and strengthen and then dismantle North Korea. Don't you agree? Please change your mind :) Thank you! Hello CMV users! This is a footnote from the moderator. There are a few things to keep in mind. First, don't forget to [READ THE RULES]. If you find an incorrect comment, reporting it is more effective than rejecting it. Speaking of which, [downvoting doesn't change my mind]! If you're thinking of submitting a CMV yourself, check out the Popular Topics Wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to send us a message. Enjoy your CMV! | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
Recently, we have received a lot of complaints about remastered games from mainstream gaming media and gamers on forums and social media. It is often considered unpopular and pointless. I disagree. I don't have a PS4 or Xbox One yet, but I do have a Wii U. However, I have family and friends who own both consoles, so I've played them to some extent. I don't have a PS4 yet, but I plan to buy the game again. Little by little we sell games like DmC, GTA V, The Last Of Us, Sleeping Dogs. It's all on the PS3 as it replaces the PS4 version. I plan to get the console next January (unless I get it as a birthday gift by then), and am building a backup game library that way. In my opinion, I want to play my favorite games. Games like DmC: Devil May Cry and The Last Of Us will run smoother and look better on PS4. So why wouldn't you want to play there? This is similar to how I replaced many of my PS2 games and many of my DVDs with Blu-rays when the PS3 had an HD collection. Video games are far older than movies, and annoyingly have a limited shelf life. For example, you can now purchase The Matrix Blu-ray both online and in stores if you prefer. Released over 15 years ago. Which games released 15 years ago are available on modern systems? Almost nothing. If you want to experience games that are more than 2-3 years old, you'll have to buy them second-hand or online. Games on legacy systems are rarely updated, but movies from the 1970s get his Blu-Ray remasters. I am a gamer on a daily basis. I mean, I haven't played most of the remastered games because I don't have enough free time. I'm currently playing maybe every fourth new release. That's what an adult gamer is. Now I'm playing DmC and having a lot of fun, but my friends didn't... so they're going to have a PS4 version soon, just like I did with Sleeping Dogs recently. I am planning to migrate. I had a PS3, but I hadn't played the game yet. I think it's a good way to keep the game relevant. Me and two of my friends (he is the only one with a PS4) have all been buying his PS4 games bit by bit and now between the two of us he has 12 games. increase. 10 of them he's available for PS3...and we each own a PS3. why? Either I didn't play it when it was released, or if I did, I decided it was good enough to warrant a higher quality rerun. It's easy to forget games that weren't playable on the previous generation. So, I like this remaster. You get better games from previous generations, with smoother gameplay and better graphics, and usually include all DLC. This keeps your game relevant and extends its shelf life. You are doing exactly what I have always said. We stopped throwing out generic FPS, generic open-world sandbox, generic 3D action-adventure games, and chasing graphics, instead we polished what we had, Learn how to make really great games. I see this as a step towards that. I currently have about 6 new games coming out every month, most of which are crappy, buggy and run-of-the-mill. I want to Filled with microtransactions because the medium has become saturated and there is now too much competition. am i wrong? Others have ridiculed or complained about the remaster, but just as I was thrilled when my favorite PS2 game got an HD remake, I was thrilled and hoping for more to come. What am I missing? Why are people so angry about this practice? Please CMV if I'm wrong... Hello CMV users! This is a footnote from the moderator. There are a few things to keep in mind. First, don't forget to [READ THE RULES]. If you find an incorrect comment, reporting it is more effective than rejecting it. Speaking of which, [downvoting doesn't change my mind]! If you're thinking of submitting a CMV yourself, check out the Popular Topics Wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to send us a message. Enjoy your CMV! | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
From my understanding, Common Core is a set of skill standards that students should learn before graduating from high school. It will take us a few more years to reach this goal, but my observations in the school mathematics system show that these skills rely heavily on rote memorization and calculation, much less on application, let alone reasoning. You can see that they are not. I checked the Common Core website and found that it accurately reflects the published standards. Take the Common Core Algebra Standard for example. If you scroll down to the overview, you'll see that nearly every skill listed is related to solving equations and such. This is a calculation. Common Core currently spends a lot of time doing relatively simple tasks for computers. Some of that time should be transferred to other areas of mathematics. I believe that algebra, like other mathematics, should be used as a medium to teach logic and logical thinking. Computers can use some logic, but the human brain is much more powerful and should be used for what it needs to be done. [This is a purely algebraic problem. ] The concept is purely algebraic, but the solution requires a great deal of critical thinking and reasoning. This is the kind of multi-layered problem that should be taught in secondary school, but most of the time it is not. Common Core does not require students to exhibit this level of critical thinking. Consider [Geometry as another example]. If you scroll down to the overview, you'll see that these standards are a bit better as they introduce the concept of proofs. However, if we take a closer look at the joint section, we only need a few basic proofs, including some basic kinds of proofs. They do not cover two important types of arguments: proofs by contradiction and proofs by induction. These two types of arguments apply better to the real world. Also, students do not need to prove algebraic concepts such as quadratic formulas. Most of the theorems of geometry and all of algebra are unproven, forcing students to memorize them. We have computers for that. We need someone to prove and argue. It is also important to combine teaching concepts such as geometry with other areas of mathematics such as calculus. I took geometry in 8th grade, a bit early for calculus, but I should have at least covered concepts like boundaries. Why is the volume of the pyramid Bh3? The idea of pushing the function to its limit makes the proof easier. Common Core doesn't cover this. So far, we have barely touched on the idea of an application. Mainly because it's the hardest. I know mathematics can be applied to all kinds of her STEM subjects, but what if that student is already majoring in the humanities?They shouldn't be forced to study engineering along with mathematics. . Therefore, I think that the application of mathematics should go back to the origin of the application of logic. Programming is a great way to take advantage of this, and math class may not be the place for it, but every student already has a programmable graphing calculator. Instead of forcing students not to use programs in their tests, as in my school, the use of programs should be encouraged because it demonstrates an understanding of the logic that underlies all mathematics. think. Perhaps this is a bit off the Common Core's purpose and shouldn't be implemented as a guideline, but it could be a great suggestion. I plan to use Common Core for a few more years and would like to know if it works. CMV please. Side note: I forgot to mention, in my opinion reasoning is much more important than memorizing real world formulas. Hello CMV users! This is a footnote from the moderator. There are a few things to keep in mind. First, don't forget to [READ THE RULES]. If you find an incorrect comment, reporting it is more effective than rejecting it. Speaking of which, [downvoting doesn't change my mind]! If you're thinking of submitting a CMV yourself, check out the Popular Topics Wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to send us a message. Enjoy your CMV! | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
To be clear, I am not talking about Bitcoin becoming (or being) a global currency or its merits as a speculative investment. I envision a world where a significant portion of the world's transactions (let's say 40) are in Bitcoin, and Bitcoin is used as a reserve currency by at least some governments and others. Basically, it is as widely accepted as the US dollar, the euro and the renminbi. With deflation and the Tobin effect, I think this will be a devastating economic trap for the world. Currently, the price of Bitcoin is rising because people like it or want to use it as a speculative investment. However, as Bitcoin becomes a stable global currency, new buyers will decline and this effect will level off. That's not what I'm worried about. The supply of new bitcoins is expected to decline asymptotically according to a pre-set algorithm, so the rate of new bitcoin creation will quickly outpace the real growth rate of the global economy. At the moment, considering PVMY, there are several possibilities. 1- The speed of money movement may be steadily increasing at a pace that smoothes the difference between the rate of real growth and the rate of growth of the money supply. There are many factors that cause speed increases and decreases, but I don't know how to achieve long-term, steady and predictable speed increases year after year. 2- The world will enter zero growth mode. Global warming is likely to level off, and we will simply stop increasing our productivity as a species. 3- Bitcoin has been in secular deflation at a rate close to real GWP growth of about 4 per year over the past decade. ) I think 3 is the most likely and has very good results. Why believe this would be a disaster. First of all, I think most people will change their savings from inflationary currency to Bitcoin when this deflation really starts. Why shouldn't you keep your money in a currency that's going up in value? It's great when the value of money increases every year, but you're missing out on a lot of profitable investment opportunities. . Imagine you want to lend money to a friend. Deflation is 4, but I think 4 is too high to charge my friend, so I agree with 2. How does this work? You give money to your girlfriend and she later pays you back with less money. You paid her instead of giving her access to your own money. This might already be true when lending below interest rate, but think about what this does to a global market when nominal interest rates will routinely drop below zero. You will keep finding situations where parties with money to invest and parties with profitable investments seeking capital will be unable to come to the same sorts of mutually beneficial deals they would be able to make with an inflationary currency. This effectively will wipe out the viability of even the safest investments if the rate of return is less than the rate of deflation. The higher yield investments will not be spared this drying up of liquidity either - high return can only be maintained by high risk, and the average investor is going to be much more wary of investing in a long shot for higher returns if the effort-free, risk-free default of hoarding cash has such a high return. Basically, this is like the difference between investing in capital and investing in land - investing in capital actually brings new productive capacities into being, buying land merely reshuffles the ownership of a fixed resource and pumps up prices. I think the end result of all of this is an increase in the gross savings rate, but like an inflationary currency, it's fantastic that we get a lot of great new productive capital to keep us rich and sustaining aggregate demand. without by-products. Also, if you switch to Bitcoin, it will be very difficult to reverse this transition. If individuals or groups go back to inflationary currencies (assuming they don't have the enormous market power to influence the incentives of others) they will just be poor forever. Take advantage of others who are sticking with Bitcoin. TL;DR - I think Bitcoin's deflationary nature discourages meaningful investment and causes the world to hide money under mattresses. | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
My understanding is that since the end of World War 2, no massive scale wars between superpowers have fought because the mutual destruction possibility, the scenario that if someone launches nuclear weapons the other nuclear owning powers will follow suit with immense destruction for everybody. Many have proposed that this is a plus side of nuclear weapons, that fear of destruction have averted the mas casualties from the previous wars. However my opinion is that on the long run, that will hurt the human race immensely, and if we could change history I would prefer nuclear weapons never existed . My main points are: - "Proxy Wars are more destructive than we think": The Cold War have shown that superpowers will still fight for dominance, but in a more covert way.Instead of massive head-on wars like WW1 and WW2 we had coups and proxy wars, where the super powers would fight (or covertly support) under the pretext of helping, one side of the other, usually leading in civil wars. While individually the number of casualties aren't compared with total war, those clashes in Asia,Africa and Europe took a lot more time (sometimes decades) to subside, created permanent bad blood in some countries that could spur new clashes all the time (spilling more blood) and atrocities where commonplace due to the inherent nature of civil war. - "modern warfare is less destructive than by the standards of world warfare": Continuing with the previous statement, the destruction of property and loss of life in these proxy wars is an indication that the two modern superpowers openly oppose each other. I would like to point out that it is bigger than if you fought. Just as Napoleon's tactics were obsolete in World War I, so are his 20th-century tactics of mass conscription, carpet bombing, and all-out warfare. Most modern armies are based on surgical strikes by air forces or specially trained teams against tactical and strategic targets that paralyze the enemy in the first days of war. The remaining armies are typically used to gain control of conquered territories. I believe that civilian centers will be saved compared to World War II, so a conventional World War III would be less devastating than the ongoing proxy war. Ironically, for example, if instead of sending "concerned people" Russia could go all out against Ukraine, the war would be over by now with much less loss of life and property. - "Nuclear war is always possible.": Finally, my biggest concern is that a global nuclear war is never impossible and the result would make regular warfare look like a tea party. about it. There is no guarantee that the political landscape in the coming years or decades will be the same as before. People and cultures are constantly changing and moving, while current border stagnation can create and erupt conditions of oppression. A lunatic may be elected president, or patriotic fervor may make a nation feel invincible. Many times [avoided a timely start]. The devastation caused by nuclear war will be on an unprecedented scale, and this time no nation will be spared reconstruction. In every conflict over the past centuries, some power has emerged to fill the power gap. But in this case, when the bombs start flying, there will be no primitive United States to rebuild Europe, no safe South America or Switzerland, and no Soviet Union to spur a technological race. It may even become extinct. In summary, on an individual level I do not want another war in my country or any country, but on a macro level I would like to eliminate all nuclear weapons, even if it causes a world war. I am going to do the impossible. Between conventional WW3 and nuclear detente, I would prefer war for the future of humanity as a whole. CMV Hello fellow CMV users. This is a footnote from the moderator. There are a few things to keep in mind. First, don't forget to [READ THE RULES]. If you find an incorrect comment, reporting it is more effective than rejecting it. Speaking of which, [downvoting doesn't change my mind]! If you're thinking of submitting a CMV yourself, check out the Popular Topics Wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to send us a message. Enjoy your CMV! | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
In recent years, many studies have shown that the United States in particular has the lowest income inequality and income mobility among developed countries, and the highest index of social problems. At the same time, American-style capitalism and inequality have become global problems. The hopeful convergence trend caused by the rapid growth of emerging markets between 2000 and 2007 has reversed. Emerging markets generate a lot of GDP, but they haven't turned much of it into wealth, and the US has even held a share of the world's wealth ever since. It increased in 2007, which propelled it to the top. As a result, the average person today is poorer than they were in 2010, even though global income and wealth have increased significantly. The average American is poorer than the average Canadian or Italian, but has roughly the same level of wealth as the Portuguese, Koreans, and West Slavs. Surprisingly, much of Western Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Israel are following the same path. It is easy to see how high inequality and low liquidity in the US are related to rising inequality globally. This inequality undermines the development of China and other emerging economies from 2000 to 2007, as well as many other US and international issues. Police brutality has proven to be one of the most effective ways to prevent desperate Black and Hispanic Americans from uniting with less desperate White Americans. Gun control has been repeatedly thwarted by desperate votes for the Tea Party, distrust of government, and, as President Obama stressed in 2008, a fixation on gun ownership as one of their few sources of power. It has been. At the same time, in heavily armed but egalitarian societies like Switzerland and Iceland, gun (and non-gun) violence occurs much less frequently than in the United States. Education reform is meaningless when 20 to 30 members of the American population struggle to make ends meet, and 70 suffer misery from a single stroke of bad luck or a single bad decision. At the same time, many Americans see education as unrewarding, taking out tens of thousands of student loans just to get a job at Starbucks or McDonald's. If the sons and daughters of America's upper-middle-class whites struggle to make ends meet, what about the opportunities and returns on investment for the white working class, let alone inner-city blacks and Hispanics? Is not it? As long as poor blacks, Hispanics, and country folk see college and martial arts as the only way to get rich, American football will forever be a stable supply of talent. In many parts of the United States, gridiron football is considered the main lifeblood and source of philanthropic and economic activity. Europe has long escaped the extreme influence of American-style capitalism. But as the economic crisis continues, left, right, and centrist parties in countries with AAA to junk credit ratings are cutting back on government programs and welfare that would have been political suicide a decade ago. are moving to action. This phenomenon has spread to Canada, Australia, and even New Zealand and Japan, and in northern countries, combined with a housing bubble in big cities, has caused devastating household debt ratios, years of "hidden homelessness" and urban couchsurfing. there is Wealth inequality on par with Stockholm and roughly the United States. In the absence of mainstream politicians opposing austerity, this great Americanization has been a boon to far-left and far-right parties and converts to Islamist extremism, including those close to President Vladimir Putin. The situation in Israel is similar. Ultranationalism has become a convenient distraction from the day-to-day problems of Israelis, and the antipathy that should be directed at the elite is directed instead at the Palestinians. At the same time, the rise of Islamic extremist groups like ISIS, which makes the Taliban and al-Qaeda look like teddy bears, has had a major impact on anti-Palestinian and anti-Arab rhetoric and alliances of convenience with former Palestinian states. Far-right European neo-Nazis. Hello CMV users! This is a footnote from the moderator. There are a few things to keep in mind. First, don't forget to [READ THE RULES]. If you find an incorrect comment, reporting it is more effective than rejecting it. Speaking of which, [downvoting doesn't change my mind]! If you're thinking of submitting a CMV yourself, check out the Popular Topics Wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to send us a message. Enjoy your CMV! | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
First of all, I would like to say that I am a huge fan of the movie Cloud Atlas. The film features a black actor (Halle Berry) playing a black woman, a white woman, and an Asian man. A white actor (Hugo Weaving) plays a white man, an Asian man and a white woman. An Asian actor (Bae Doona) plays an Asian, Caucasian, and Mexican woman. etc. I see nothing offensive about this if the actors attempt to portray their characters in the most apporpriate ways possible. Yet many people find examples like this extremely offensive; a point recently made this year when Jarred Leto won awards for playing a transsexual in Dallas Buyers Club. I have heard arguments along the lines of (and forgive me if I misrepresent these arguments; I find them hard to understand, which is why I'm here): This is offensive because it follows a history of colonialism While I readily agree that the cultures of colonized peoples were often mistreated, misrepresented, or made fun of offensively, I do not think this halts humans from participating in foreign cultures for the rest of time. Furthermore, there are many historical examples of white people oppressing other white people, black people oppressing other black people, and asians oppressing other asians, so I'm not sure why race is a decisive factor here. This is offensive because a white actor cannot fully appreciate the suffering of a black person Again, I may agree with this, but to me this precludes almost any type of acting. How can Edward Norton and Brad Pitt play squatters in Fight Club if neither can understand the plight of the homeless? , if he doesn't suffer from such an illness, how can he play a straight man with a socially withdrawn, obsessive-compulsive personality on the sitcom The Big Bang Theory? Before the 19th century How can you be in a historical drama when no one knows what the world was like? How can you play a character you're not? And if living in someone else's position is considered offensive to me, how can I respect that person's position? When a white person plays a black person, it makes them uncomfortable when a black person says that. Aside from the fact that there is no monolithic “black man” to make these judgments for us, this is false. I think most white supremacists resent having their position questioned. I don't think we should offend white supremacists. This line of thinking isn't necessarily wrong, but you can't stand on your own feet. This is offensive because it deprives the actor of the right job for the role. See Jared Leto's example here. My problem is that this debate stems from the lack of trans actors in Hollywood (a legitimate concern), but leads to what I see as not the solution (trans actors are all trans people). You have to play a role, and you can only play a trans role). Why do people downplay The Dallas By The Club, which has real transgender characters, unlike so many other movies? Does it discourage acting and encourage or require us to define ourselves solely by our gender sexuality? I think you are limited to your needs. I think he reinforces the cultural barrier by supporting the idea that people of a different race or gender than himself are 'others' with whom he can never empathize. This makes it impossible to use role-play as a tool for building empathy. And in the end, I think it's nonsense. If an actor thinks that playing a character he has never lived is automatically offensive, then logically he should find the whole acting practice offensive, and things like film and theater probably are. it's not for you CMV please Hello fellow CMV users! This is a footnote from the moderator. There are a few things to keep in mind. First, don't forget to [READ THE RULES]. If you find an incorrect comment, reporting it is more effective than simply ignoring it. Speaking of which, [downvoting doesn't change my mind]! If you're thinking of submitting a CMV yourself, check out the Popular Topics Wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to send us a message. Enjoy your CMV! | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
[Taylor Swift's latest music video] is very different from her previous work. After seeing it, I googled it to see what people were saying about it. One of the first links I found for her was the question "Is Shake it Off uncomfortable?" Central to the "aggressive" argument is the idea of cultural abuse. Essentially, critics accuse Swift of exploiting elements of black culture for her own benefit or in ways that are somehow harmful to someone else. I want to question this idea of cultural appropriation. In my opinion no such thing exists and this complaint is nonsense. Whether it's Taylor's case or other cases where cultural appropriation is the only complaint, it's nonsense. Culture is a collection of ideas, languages, music, art, stories, etc. Culture doesn't belong to anyone, and no one has any real basis for arguing that it can't be used by others. Any claim about who can or cannot use culture is inherently flawed, especially since humans themselves do not create culture. Each cultural element was created by taking existing ideas, modifying them, and adding new ones. Trying to stop people from using cultural elements is the same as trying to stop the growth of culture. This idea is a senseless exclusivity that leads to cultural deprivation. Two examples come to mind when thinking about how bad cultural abuse can be. First, when white musicians of old essentially stole the form of music from black people. Elvis Presley is a prime example of that. I acknowledge that cultural appropriation has taken place here (note the missing mistake), but deny that this is a bad thing. The harm in the Elvis case was not that Elvis copied black music and dance styles. Elvis has the right to rock and dance like no other on the planet. Rather, the damage comes from the root cause. Black musicians doing essentially the same thing as Elvis did not succeed because black people were so discriminated against in society. In other words, cultural appropriation is still good here, but it's the racist attitudes that have prevented black musicians from succeeding themselves. The solution is not to condemn Elvis as a music thief, but to build a society where artists can succeed or fail regardless of race. That said, I don't think Taylor Swift and Miley have done anything wrong by incorporating elements of black music and dance. I can understand the argument that society is still structured in such a way that black musicians are less likely to succeed. But the problem would not lie in misappropriation, but in society's racist attitudes. The second example, which came to mind but was eventually discarded, is more extreme (I also go to Godwin myself). The Nazis adopted the swastika, which as far as I know (from Wikipedia) comes from a Hindi expression meaning something like "well done". The Nazis plagiarized elements of culture and basically destroyed it by associating it with themselves. Is this an example of cultural abuse? I would still say no. If I had written my reasons above, you would have already understood them without me explaining them. The pernicious deeds of the Nazis did not include painting specific symbols on flags. Harmful include mass murder, wars of aggression, eugenics, and human experimentation. Because they have done harmful things, there is a lot of negative emotion associated with everything they have done, good or bad. Another way to think about the Nazi example is that I certainly understand some Hindi speakers are upset that the West is no longer allowed to use swastikas in public. So, think about the name Adolf Hitler. Hitler's parents had to decide what to name Hitler, and when they chose Adolf, they basically messed up leaving that name to future generations. Was it morally wrong to choose that name? The Nazis chose the symbol for the flag no different than Hitler chose the name of his son. Both were ruined as the Nazis continued their atrocities, but it was the atrocities that were bad, not their adoption of pre-existing cultural concepts (names and symbols, respectively). In other words, cultural appropriation exists, and it's a good thing. No cultural appropriation. Trying to limit cultural appropriation is bad. Or can you change my mind? | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
I've seen it over and over again. Monsanto is evil, GMOs are being stigmatized because of Monsanto, GMOs are bad because Monsanto makes them, Monsanto is going out of business with lawsuits on innocent farmers there is, and so on. . If you've paid attention to any aspect of GE's discussions, you'll find that these discussions are fairly cohesive. But according to my own research, that's not the case. 1) There appears to be scientific consensus on the health effects of genetically modified crops, independent of Monsanto. You can generally find people saying that there is not, but I can cite a lot of scientific studies and major scientific bodies that say otherwise. 2) A few cases of Monsanto suing a farmer for patent infringement have been turned into this narrative that Monsanto sues anyone for any amount of "contamination" in their field. Percy Schmeiser is often indirectly cited, though his case, as ruled by the Canadian Supreme Court, is 100 his fault because he intentionally selected the accidentally "contaminated" crops which resisted glyphosate by spraying glyphosate and replanting those that survived, ending up with a 97 pure GE canola field which he did not have license for, violating Monsanto's patent on that GE canola. Other cases are sometimes cited, like the one farmer which attempted to circumvent patents by buying GE wheat from a grain tower and planting it, but they all have similar faults in that they ignore what actually happened in order to demonize Monsanto. 3) Monsanto is not controlling the research on GE. It just does not make any sense that the same people who claim that massive oil companies like Enron could not stymie anthropogenic global warming are the same people who claim that the comparatively much smaller Monsanto could control the results of thousands of studies except for a small handful. Sure, they may have some influence here and there, and their blocking of fully independent research (until 2010) is horrendous but that does not invalidate the results of thousands of studies. 4) The fact that Monsanto has produced a variety of chemicals in the past does not matter. I've seen it over and over again, where some person brings up Monsanto's production of Agent Orange without looking at the context of the situation (at government request, during the Vietnam war, with little research done into dioxin contamination, etc) and thinks that they have made this stunning zinger of an argument. I've even seen someone produce a small gish gallopy list of chemicals Monsanto has produced, and seen the list debunked as the original poster was ignoring the individual details and contexts of those chemicals (I did the debunking). 5) If I remember correctly, Monsanto only has 17% of the biotech market. This is often portrayed as a monopoly attempt by anti-GM activists, but I don't think so. In fact, I believe that ending the senseless over-regulation of GM crops will reduce the likelihood of the emergence of a monopoly of GM crops. There are probably other things I wish I could have added to this post if I could remember, but please don't take this as a form of corporate shilling to Monsanto or a hoax on the part of Monsanto. I know that corporate earnings are profits, but there are also some legitimate criticisms that I criticize it for (e.g., close ties to US Supreme Court justices [which I may particularly despise. When I say yes, I say so) and close relationships with senior counsel to Supreme Court justices. Obama Administration Director of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Michael R. Taylor). But I don't think Monsanto has more concerns than any other company. Like many others, I cannot find sufficient reasons to conclude that Monsanto is an evil organization whose purpose is world domination and peasant enslavement (this is clearly an exaggeration... Hopefully). change your view of me? Cite documented sources if possible. I hate NaturalNews and other bogus sources. Hello CMV users! This is a footnote from the moderator. There are a few things to keep in mind. First, don't forget to [READ THE RULES]. If you find an incorrect comment, reporting it is more effective than simply ignoring it. Speaking of which, [downvoting doesn't change my mind]! If you're thinking of submitting a CMV yourself, check out the Popular Topics Wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to send us a message. Enjoy your CMV! | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
The recently passed California Campus Rape Act states that (1) there are affirmative consent criteria for determining whether both parties consented to sexual activity; "Affirmative Consent" means affirmative, conscious, voluntary consent to engage in sexual activity. It is the responsibility of each person who participates in sexual activity to ensure that they have the consent of the other party to engage in sexual activity. No protest or resistance does not mean consent, and silence does not mean consent. Affirmative consent must be present throughout the sexual act and can be withdrawn at any time. The existence of a relationship between the parties, or the fact that they have previously had a sexual relationship, should never be construed solely as an indicator of consent. (2) In assessing complaints in disciplinary proceedings, the fact that the defendant believed that the complainant consented to sexual activity in any of the following circumstances is not a valid excuse for lack of affirmative consent: Policy that it will not be. (A) ) The defendant's belief in affirmative consent arose from the defendant's drunkenness or recklessness. (B) Defendant did not take reasonable steps under the circumstances of which it was known at the time to establish whether Plaintiff affirmatively consented. (3) The preponderance of the evidence is the criterion for determining whether the requirements for indictment against the defendant have been established. (4) In assessing the complaint in disciplinary proceedings, if the defendant knew or reasonably should have known about the sexual activity, the complainant expressly consented to the sexual activity. The policy is that believing that Unconsensually engaged in sexual activity under the following circumstances: (A) The applicant was asleep or unconscious; (B) The applicant was incapacitated under the influence of drugs, alcohol, or drugs and was unable to comprehend the fact, nature, or extent of sexual activity; (C) The complainant was unable to communicate because of a mental or physical illness. (Note: For simplicity, we will stick to traditional gender roles here.) Therefore, active consent must be present throughout sexual activity, and silence and lack of resistance equate consent. You cannot simply assume that there is. Only then can you do so. Repeated verbal consent from the partner, such as "Yes, please keep having sex!", "Yes, please keep having sex!", "Yes, please keep having sex!" There is no doubt that there is. , and because sexual assault is defined in this bill, you may be sexually assaulting a poor girl. (Unless, of course, you can read their minds.) First, the initial consent must be explicitly obtained on this basis. It's not that hard. They either explicitly want to have sex, they are initiating sex, or their body language clearly indicates that they accept your invitation. But... hang on, buddy. Because, before starting sex, it is better to analyze the psychological history of this girl. Because if this purported consent is simply due to the girl's "recklessness", it cannot be relied upon. I don't know how to know that. If asked, "Hey, aren't you just reckless?", wouldn't a reckless person answer that question? [PS: I misread that part of the law]. And the final issue is that if your partner is unable to communicate because of a "mental illness," you need to understand that they will tell you to withdraw their consent if it is possible. Of course, due to their "mental state" they can't. So if they're "terrified" or "hardened", rational or not, and you can't tell them to stop, then unknowingly sexually assault them now. She may even give you non-verbal cues to make you believe that consent is ongoing. But if saying she has a "mental illness" just means she's doing it "for fear of what might happen if I don't," now is the time to sexually harass her again. please do. So let's change our minds and realize that since there are situations where neither (a) verbal consent nor (b) mind-reading is required, the man can be 100% sure that the girl actually wants to participate in sexual activity. teach me please. | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
Hi CMV, this is my first post. I look forward to the discussion. Canada has her two parliaments, the Senate (upper house) and the House of Representatives (lower house). Members of the House of Representatives are elected by the people, and the party leader with the most seats (not necessarily a majority) is elected Prime Minister by the Governor-General (the Queen's agent in Canada). Senators, on the other hand, are elected by the Governor-General on the advice of the sitting Prime Minister. As a result of this process, elected members (if not actually members of that party) tend to lean towards the ruling party. Once elected to the Senate, they must hold their seat (unless resigned or fired) until age 75, at which point they must retire. State and territory proportionality is taken into account when appointing senators. The Senate can block legislation from passing, but it is rarely used. Therefore, the House of Representatives effectively has greater powers in Congress. In recent years, there have been moves to reform, if not abolish, the Senate. Some parties are calling for senators to be elected, others are calling for a seven-year term limit, and some are calling for the abolition of senators altogether. The Liberal Party (historically Canada's "natural governing party" but has lost many seats in recent elections and is now the third strongest party in Congress) recently kicked all senators out of the party. and technically independent. They can decide their own position and do not have to follow the Liberal Party's position. I don't mind other kinds of reforms, but I don't think the Senate should be abolished and elected. I believe that the fact that senators are not elected gives them the power to speak in debates and debate bills based on facts and research. They don't have to worry about re-election, so they can choose "doing the right thing" instead of just "what gets votes" or "what gets sponsorship money" (oh yeah, I forgot). Please note that individual and corporate contributions to political parties are limited and each political party receives campaign funds from taxpayer money in proportion to the number of votes it receives. These are also called "cool thoughts" because they are not easily swayed by votes or partisan actions. Ideally, the elected senators are experts in a particular field (military, legal, journalistic, etc.). But in practice, I am aware that some MPs who are elected solely because of their loyalty to the ruling party cannot be entitled and appointed. However, this is not a special issue. The same is true for the appointment of US ambassadors to Argentina and Hungary, which could also be considered partisan. The fact that senators are unlikely to retire for the long term means that not all senators belong to the same party. Although the Conservatives have been in power for over eight years, only 55 of the 105 Senators are Conservatives due to the long Liberal rule before the Conservatives came to power. This ensures continuity and ensures the Senate isn't easily shaken by sudden Flare of the Day changes. The fact that the Senate will not be elected will also prevent power crises like the one in the US last year. The (Canadian) Senate is not an elected body, so any disagreement with the House will be won by the House. This reduces the effectiveness of the Senate, but keeps her two Houses of Congress from pitting each other against each other. If the Senate were an elected body, it would have the same legitimacy as the House, but it would lead to a deadlock if the majority of the houses differed and disagreed. Ultimately, I believe that an unelected Senate is essential to ensure that politics does not just win votes, but governs properly while avoiding government deadlocks and dysfunctions. thinking about. Hello CMV users! This is a footnote from the moderator. There are a few things to keep in mind. First, don't forget to [READ THE RULES]. If you find an incorrect comment, reporting it is more effective than rejecting it. Speaking of which, [downvoting doesn't change my mind]! If you're thinking of submitting a CMV yourself, check out the Popular Topics Wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to send us a message. Enjoy your CMV! | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
I have never been able to understand the legitimacy of externally imposed sanctions in diplomacy. Assuming a condition grievous enough to necessitate an attempt by one nation to change the operating conditions of another nation (i.e. removing from consideration the validity of the concept of a 'just war, the prevailing view seems to be that to avoid (noncold war at all costs is the 'moral' choice. The imposition of economic sanctions is a common way of applying leverage to induce change in the behavior of a sovereign nation without use of military force. While I am not in any way arguing that the loss of human life is morally acceptable, nor that war does not leave scars on the populace at both the individual and societal levels, nor that 'hosting' a war does not have the potential for myriad negative effects on a country's functioning long after the cessation of hostilities, I do still believe that the 'avoid war at all costs' approach takes the short view at the expense of the long view, as measured in the quality of life of the target nations citizens. If it is reasonable to assume that the point of sanctions is to make the target regime unpopular enough that the citizenry is motivated to force either regime change or at least a change in the offending practice (s), then it is already a given that the intervention being put in place is designed to put stresses on the civilian population. Building on that assumption (that the system relies on the ruling regime ensuring that stress flows downhill), and on the assumption that international intervention is only discussed when the regime in power is perpetrating an action that the international community considers unacceptable enough to interfere, is it not also reasonable to expect that the targeted regime is in a position of significant power over its citizenry? If the population were able to do something about the issue, would they not have done so by that point? If you assume that there is a marked chance that the population is not in a position to effect change, then the imposition of sanctions guarantees a decrease in civilian quality of life without guaranteeing amelioration of the root issue. In that case, do you not risk increasing the likelihood of civilians living in a state of despair, a condition that risks becoming ingrained in the culture, crossing generational boundaries, and that also leads to civilian deaths over time (from several different vectors)? So, in the case of sanctions, are you not risking a negative effect on an entire civilian population over an indefinite period of time for a dubious chance of achieving the desired change and a decent chance of reinforcing the status quo? If war were to occur, it would have a significant but limited adverse effect on some civilians (perhaps all, perhaps not all) for a limited period of time, and would not be more likely to bring about desirable change. Uka (slight change)? Is the status quo guaranteed? This does not mean that when time (measured in generations) is taken into account, the morality of choice ultimately comes down to whether the needs of the majority outweigh the needs of the few. In order not to derail the discussion a priori, I did not mention specific conflicts, but I will say that my views are based on some historical research and some second-hand knowledge. I would like. No advanced studies, no strong emotional bonds. change your mind TL;DR: War is hell for generations on either side of the conflict, but timing is limited and some change is guaranteed. Economic sanctions will make life hell, perhaps indefinitely, for those who cannot afford it. Because change is not guaranteed, and in fact the target regime is likely to ensure that life is hell from the start. I'm no ignorant or expert in this area. CMV! Hello CMV users! This is a footnote from the moderator. There are a few things to keep in mind. First, don't forget to [READ THE RULES]. If you find an incorrect comment, reporting it is more effective than rejecting it. Speaking of which, [downvoting doesn't change my mind]! If you're thinking of submitting a CMV yourself, check out the Popular Topics Wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to send us a message. Enjoy your CMV! | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
What kind of system will be introduced is open to interpretation, but let's assume that the system that will be introduced is the one described here. We are well aware of the difference between theory and reality. A unified world, in my opinion, is the next step towards a better humanity. A unified economy and wealth distribution will lead to faster development in poorer areas, and global laws make it easier for police to crack down. Healthcare will be global, and the education system will be free. Each point will be explained in detail later. There is one main body of her (the A Assembly), composed of one representative from each country, each with equal voting rights. (This is actually very complicated and requires a lot of thinking to be fair to a country with a large population that is neither dominant nor less powerful than its population.) is prosecuted by a transparent body that verifies that there are no real problems. The organization exists in all countries and will rotate staff every few years to ensure there is no corruption. Also, this body is transparent and is monitored by another body, but the same applies to this body. Redundancy to keep corruption from ruling the world. National armies will be abolished and a global police force will be established. Each country will have its own police force, laws will be passed at the World Congress, and delegates will be trained on the issue. There are different types of bodies within Congress that specialize in particular issues. (You must have a good knowledge of the matter in order to make a decision.) Transparency of World Government is guaranteed and mandatory. Everything is transparent, the government exists for the people, not the other way around. Each country will have a great deal of autonomy, but there will be global laws that each country must respect. Some aspects of the economy are controlled by the World Congress to properly distribute wealth. The balance between rich and poor countries is crucial to the success of this system. A fully globalized world will exist in 200-300 years, and the development process of each country will end 100-200 years after unification. The main goal of this association is to ultimately develop underdeveloped countries, integrate them into the major economies, and provide the world with adequate health care and education. Now the question is, where does this money come from? How is wealth distributed fairly, and how does it work in theory? Globalization is a long-term process in which strong economies form the backbone of poor countries. Become. Since the tax system is based on the strength of the local (national) economy, the tax burden does not cause much damage to the economy and is sufficient for the country to build adequate education and health care. Some countries will receive subsidies from leading economies, but this is a long-term investment and the money they give will (eventually) come back. Immigration is under strict control and is closely monitored at the beginning of unification. But as the economies of poorer countries develop, these restrictions will be lifted. The aim is to prevent a flood of immigrants from wreaking havoc in wealthy countries. Issues of cultural differences, religion and all other kinds of conflicts will be dealt with fairly by the global court system (laws must be expanded), disputes between nations will be resolved by the world government and all kinds of disputes are severely criticized. And if neither side has an alternative armed intervention, it can be dealt with diplomatically. (Both sides fight until they stop.) The special police are tasked with "cooling" the "hot" zones and a sort of "UN", but with real forces right behind them so as not to run counter to local laws. . (World laws are enacted to ensure national stability.) All nations have the right to freely secede from their country through a referendum to prevent rebellion or armed conflict. I could go on for hours to fill in the little blanks, but the gist is here, I missed a few points, but I don't want to bore you to death. | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
As Americans in a capitalist economy, we are "socialized" and educated into an unrealistically individualistic view of how things are, to a point that obvious truths become politically invisible. It starts in the classroom - when the students from wealthy families do well and happily show up every day, they are good, smart kids. When the poor kids are humiliated in school every day, they are bad kids. If they decide that the system isn't looking out for their best interests, exercise their autonomy, and reject the system, they are seen as horrible dropouts instead of astute observers of societal indifference, insanity, and cruelty. Future generations will look back and wonder at the absurd lengths we have gone to to preserve the cruel and insane illusions of individualism so that the rich can preserve their idea of "individualistic meritocracy." That pure "rugged individualism" is an American social insanitydisease is obvious to children, sometimes obvious to people who communicate with one another across the globe, and blatantly obvious to teachers who create non-excludable benefits for countless people which the wealthy are then able to then capture and "monetize." Right now, I could teach you sooo many things that would change your life forever, just because you're a human being, and we're living on the planet together, and I want you to be happy. (But I'm not going to do it out of learned socio-economic prudence and supply-side demand. I mean, "Fuck it, pay me!" I've learned not to care about you. I'm sorry.) It's just stupid people. And everyone denies the benefits that are always available anywhere, anytime, and that thrive in the capitalist system. Because we've been taught to claim (and believe lies) that we made it all ourselves. Ignore all the wonderful, undeniable benefits you are getting from everything and everyone all the time. Yes, you really did it all yourself, you idiot. And people will ruthlessly attack anyone who denounces individualistic nonsense, because that is capitalism. Even education and health care are now seen as private goods rather than public goods. Because being surrounded by smart, healthy and educated people obviously has nothing to do with my own well-being. It's a purely personal, financial matter. Capitalism and our education system teach people not to care about each other unless they pay for it. Because we are raised to live in an individualistic thought bubble where the well-being and happiness of every other human being is the routine. nothing to do with us. In fact, the more stupid and miserable you are, the more money I can make from you. So instead of caring and caring for you, I make you my bitch financially, thus leaving you forever ignorant and stupid and miserable. And of course, we eventually forget that the thought bubble exists because no one tells us how to escape it. Thus, people learn to be cruel and indifferent, instead of willingly creating happiness that cannot be excluded for all, because, in people's perception, the other people they pass by every day really have nothing to do with their own happiness. increase. "Stubborn individualism" is a rigid sociopath who believes that people's happiness depends on money and not living in a caring, healthy, empathetic, or intelligent society. It's a very unrealistic view that turns into I think this is evidenced in some way by [this study] which showed that since the 1980s, young people's empathy has declined, with the decline being most pronounced in the 2000s. We are trying to kill people's natural compassion with "strong individualism" and replace it with money. This reminds me of someone once said about our inability to serve both God and wealth. When you try to remind people of the compassion you naturally had as a child, they look at you with eyes that are mad that you are dead in your heart. Because that's what living in a personal thought bubble with the rest of the world that has nothing to do with you does to you. CMV. Hello CMV users! This is a footnote from the moderator. There are a few things to keep in mind. First, don't forget to [READ THE RULES]. If you find an incorrect comment, reporting it is more effective than rejecting it. Speaking of which, [downvoting doesn't change my mind]! If you're thinking of submitting a CMV yourself, check out the Popular Topics Wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to send us a message. Enjoy your CMV! | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
Note: Frankly, I know this point of view has already been discussed on this subreddit, but I don't feel like the discussion wasn't expanded enough. Either way, these threads are dead and hard to revive. There is a new point I would like to point out. Most of the time this concept is only discussed in the world of politics, but I would like to keep the discussion as far away from politics as possible. I think this problem exists in social media at a level of complexity that is not yet fully defined. I really hope someone here can word what I'm trying to explain better than I can, or help understand if I'm missing something. The definition of satire is "the use of humor, sarcasm, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize the stupidity and vices of people, especially in the context of contemporary politics and other current affairs." TV shows such as SNL, The Colbert Report. South Park uses excessive satire primarily to prove a point that is part of the belief system of its creators. Satire is a wonderful way to have fun understanding other people's beliefs, but I think it's gotten to the point where it's more harmful than progressive. TV shows like South Park and The Daily Show have been on the air for about 20 years. Kids in the late 90's and early 2000's have been exposed to a lot of satire from childhood to adulthood. So I think satire is deeply ingrained in the minds of growing adults and has very negative side effects. These side effects make it "cool to hate". I see many examples like this on social media. For some reason (I don't know why), it's considered cool to hate actor Nicolas Cage. These strange ideas spread through social media and online memes. Suddenly, a lot of the younger generation, unknowingly or without thinking rationally, were bashing Nicolas Cage and claiming he was a terrible actor. We see the same thing happening to many other celebrities. But Nick Cage is just a celebrity, so it shouldn't matter, right? But I can't help but see this blind hatred popping up everywhere. It also extends to stereotypes, so I draw the line there. I think we're getting to a point where it's cool to hate women. It would be cool to hate hipsters. Even disliking various websites like Facebook, Reddit, and Twitter can be cool. The reason I think this is a problem is that it encourages a lot of ignorant, aimless, negative thinking. And while I understand hate has always been "cool" in some way, these days we're bombarded with hate everywhere: our Facebook feeds, our phones, our music. This hatred is so pervasive around us that it has become a perfectly normal part of our daily lives and is accepted as "okay". The worst part is that it doesn't encourage healthy, thoughtful discussion. When someone is accused of satirical libel, the accuser can easily avoid making a fool of themselves or defending themselves by saying, "It's just a joke, calm down." There is truth in every joke and I don't think it should be taken lightly in the world we live in today. Satire manipulates truthful, original, and thoughtful arguments. The reason I posted here in the first place is because I know this subreddit is ruthless and intolerant of hateful spirits. It is progress and original thinking. I'm afraid he's arguing about two different topics, so I encourage others to help me organize my thoughts. I'm very interested in getting to the heart of this topic. I really hope someone will change my mind as this is leading me down a rabbit hole with a dark, passive-aggressive future ahead. Hello CMV users! This is a footnote from the moderator. There are a few things to keep in mind. First, don't forget to [READ THE RULES]. If you find an incorrect comment, reporting it is more effective than rejecting it. Speaking of which, [downvoting doesn't change my mind]! If you're thinking of submitting a CMV yourself, check out the Popular Topics Wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to send us a message. Enjoy your CMV! | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
As defined by feminist philosopher, Martha Nussbaum, objectification exists through 7 compents instrumentality: the treatment of a person as a tool for the objectifier's purposes; denial of autonomy: the treatment of a person as lacking in autonomy and self-determination; inertness: the treatment of a person as lacking in agency, and perhaps also in activity; fungibility: the treatment of a person as interchangeable with other objects; violability: the treatment of a person as lacking in boundary-integrity; ownership: the treatment of a person as something that is owned by another (can be bought or sold); denial of subjectivity: the treatment of a person as something whose experiences and feelings (if any) need not be taken into account. The first problem, I feel, lies with the "instrumentality" component, as I feel it fails to make a proper distinction between acts that are or aren't objectifications due to being too large a concept. All conscious acts we can take part in are inspired through motivational goals; either we do things for the result that is spawned from taking those actions or we do them for the actions themselves, either way they have a purpose. Knowing that the choice to interact is a conscious action, all our purposeful interactions with others would logically lead to us using them as tools for our goals, whether it would simply to obtain someone's company or in the job market where we are always either tools for the people to which we provide services or for our superiors or using them as tools to generate income. The logical conclusion, I feel, would be that all acts are objectification which I am sure those who use that term don't mean. The second problem lies in the fourth aspect. Whether someone is substitutable or not seems to depend heavily on subjective value judgments about that person's skills and characteristics. Moreover, for most of the traits we hold dear, I'm sure there are groups of people who share them, so I don't think anyone is irreplaceable. For example, you are probably not the only person who has had a high-level education, followed a particular curriculum in college to qualify for a job, or had similar experience in a field of technological feasibility. . After all, like the previous component, substitutability cannot objectively describe what is objectifying and what is not. This is because the value judgments required to assess the importance of a position are subjective and lack uniqueness in our capacity. My 3rd problem is with the 2nd component. I obviously don't advocate slavery or rape, but I have a problem with the term "lacking," as a lack ,which doesn't simply mean not having something, implies an inferior quantityquality to a certain amount that would be ideal, however, the amount in question is never specified or described . A distinction, I think needs to be made, as I feel our capacity for self-determination is inherently hindered by societal constructions, for example not wanting to go against cultural norms (which all societiesgroups have) to fit in or needing a job of any kind to provide for yourself, and we obviously wouldn't say we're all objectified. I don't mind the usage of components 3, 5 and 6, but I feel my response 7th component would resemble the one I had for the 2nd in terms or societal contracts as I feel the fulfillment of one's feeling goes hand in hand with self-determination. Other ways to objectify people have been described such as "reduction to bodyappearance," however, I feel that from a materialistic standpoint the first (body) is meaningless and that reduction implies that appearance is the only important component in a person's however another observer could always find other elements that just as important in the "objectified" person's actions. For example, looking at supermodels may reveal a charismatic demeanor that is equally important to you. Therefore, whether a person is "reduced" to something is up to the viewer's perception. EDIT: Apologies in advance if this is wordy or long. Hello CMV users! This is a footnote from the moderator. There are a few things to keep in mind. First, don't forget to [READ THE RULES]. If you find an incorrect comment, reporting it is more effective than rejecting it. Speaking of which, [downvoting doesn't change my mind]! If you're thinking of submitting a CMV yourself, check out the Popular Topics Wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to send us a message. Enjoy your CMV! | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
The most common arguments against Citizens United seem to be misinformed, so I have to start with a few clarifications. (1). Citizen United has not changed the actual campaign contribution cap. Corporations can't donate anything to campaigns, and even the wealthiest individuals are limited to 2,600 per election cycle (although they can donate up to 5,200 total in the biennial primaries). When a site like Opensecrets reports a donation "from" a company, it is from that company's employees or other parties. If two flyers who work at McDonald's each donated $2,600 to Elizabeth Warren, Open Secret would list it as $5,200 "from" McDonald's. See [here] (2). Advertisements that directly support or oppose any candidate will run in the Buckley vs. Buckley match. Valeo is still limited to explicit advocacy (and treated as a "donation-in-kind"). (3). A Super PAC is a PAC that cannot be donated to a candidate. What makes them "amazing" is their ability to receive unlimited donations as an "independent spending committee." But they can only use that money for what falls under the Buckley administration's independent advocacy. (Four). The personality of the company was not the determining factor. Even Lawrence Lessig refutes this misconception. Citizens United Court ruled that all expressions of opinion are protected regardless of source. The rationale is not "People have freedom of speech, companies have people, so companies have freedom of speech." I agree with Citizens United Court. First, protection of free speech requires protection of free speech spending to the same extent as protection of free speech (i.e. restricting free speech must withstand scrutiny). not). Second, restricting person A's freedom of expression may drown out person B's freedom of expression, so there is no valid argument. In the first point, let's consider a scenario where the speech itself cannot be regulated, but the money spent on it can be regulated. Essentially, I just said there is no First Amendment protection. In other words, governments (except for press-free businesses) can pass legislation that prohibits the purchase of bandwidth for use in criticizing the government, and if the restrictions are reasonable in relation to the government's legitimate interests. It is enough to show that it is a thing. Rpolitics could be effectively shut down, or at least censored to the extent that Reddit would have to spend money on servers and bandwidth. Nor would there be a Fourteenth Amendment argument if the government only restricted spending related to government criticism. The requirement that censorship be neutral in content and thought (i.e., the government cannot ban OWS, but it can allow Tea Party protests) is under First Amendment protections. Governments can effectively neutralize free speech without paying for protection. As for the second point, I honestly don't understand the argument that if the Koch X Brothers spent money on ads that said, "Hey, Obamacare sucks," the American public would follow suit. And if really the issue is the difference in airtime between their view and mine, then why shouldn't it matter when it comes to Jon Stewart's airtime and mine, or even Aaron Sorkin's airtime? Is not it? Damn, Google's view on SOPA is certainly much more popular than mine (whether or not I agree with Google's view). And here comes the part about not trusting democracy. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Stevens argued that because Americans do not have unlimited time to listen, research, process information, and decide on opinions they agree with, not many conversations take place. I wrote that I disagree with But the essence of this argument is the belief that too much exposure to the same perspective will force the American public to agree. And the argument to limit the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution based on American laziness and stupidity should not be persuasive. CMV. Hello CMV users! This is a footnote from the moderator. There are a few things to keep in mind. First, don't forget to [READ THE RULES]. If you find an incorrect comment, reporting it is more effective than rejecting it. Speaking of which, [downvoting doesn't change my mind]! If you're thinking of submitting a CMV yourself, check out the Popular Topics Wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to send us a message. Enjoy your CMV! | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
Have you seen The Imitation Game (2014)? Interesting movie, I really enjoyed it...until I checked it out, as I always do after watching a movie. I was quite upset to learn that [some aspects of the film's plot have been distorted to make the film more dramatic]. I don't think anything good will come of this, and to be honest, it's pretty frustrating. For example, in this film, the main character, Alan Turing, is portrayed by the actors as apparently having some degree of autism, although according to a Wikipedia quote (I'm not sure who exactly said ), "The traits portrayed in the film, in my opinion, are either to individualize Turing's character, to make the film more interesting, or to encourage sympathy in the audience." It's an insult to memory, more on his character, sometimes smaller than character changes, watching 13 Days (2000) in high school history class to supplement my Cold War studies. The film bolstered the "Soviet Union is evil, JFK is God" theme in including an entirely fictional battle scene, but all the parts included used actual Cold War footage and made every effort to appear as a historically accurate film. I saw it in history class, just in case! Kenneth O'Donnell has also been criticized for playing a major role in ending the Cuban Missile Crisis. A person who was actually on the scene claimed, "For the record, Kenny O'Donnell had no part...". I find it simply offensive to exaggerate, downplay, or not justify the role of real historical figures. So unless historians can guarantee that the film is legitimate, I would suggest that no film should be made "based on a true story." "A depiction of what really happened. Here are some possible first arguments: 'They claim it's based on a true story, which isn't entirely historically accurate.' Yes, But it means that these films still spread misinformation "based on the truth," especially when filmmakers strive to make their films look as historically accurate as possible. "almost true" (e.g. B. Includes real dates, quotes, and makes the actors as close to real people as possible. It's not the spectator's job to read what really happened or what the author made up for fun. "The purpose of cinema is to entertain, not to teach history." Even if you know nothing about JFK, there is no doubt that watching JFK (1991) will make you at least a little more knowledgeable. Part of the movie is correct and they should feel more knowledgeable. But the other part is hopelessly wrong. “It would be boring to watch a movie about real events.” Savor it. If you want to learn history, watch documentaries. If you want action, watch The Avengers. Never watch Pearl Harbor (2001). Quote from Wikipedia about the film: "Producer Jerry Bruckheimer was quoted as saying, 'Although I have tried to be accurate, it was never intended to be a lesson in history.'" it pisses me off. What was the purpose of making a film about Pearl Harbor? ” What if it didn't get it right? Okay, I think I've ranted enough (or more). I have to stop worrying about tons of movies (Don't get me started on Pocahontas (1995) and Argo) 2012 - Please CMV! Editing: Great chats with everyone! Bad stories still annoy me, but they have changed my perspective. The most compelling argument for me is that the director has artistic freedom and that all the secondary material in the story is in any case a matter of perspective and interpretation, and many other valuable It was just as incredibly difficult to draw the line between the unimportant and the unimportant as with the material. Insightful discussion. Thank you for playing! Hello CMV users! This is a footnote from the moderator. There are a few things to keep in mind. First, don't forget to [READ THE RULES]. If you find an incorrect comment, reporting it is more effective than rejecting it. Speaking of which, [downvoting doesn't change my mind]! If you're thinking of submitting a CMV yourself, check out the Popular Topics Wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to send us a message. Enjoy your CMV! | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
This morning I received a Snapchat video from last night at a college bar full of friends wrestling dwarfs. Large crowds came to witness the spectacle. Whether the wrestling was real or for show is unknown, but the large crowd gathered around the ring, which was presumably smaller than the regulation size, prompted a large number of people to watch the dwarves wrestle. It was clear that they were willing to pay to see it. It seems silly to say this, but I am deeply disappointed and embarrassed when I find out that the people I'm involved with in society are wrong and want to see real professional wrestling with dwarves. You feel san (visceral: emotions that come from instinct rather than intellect). At the same time, I don't think so about cockfights. To clarify my feelings, I asked myself a series of questions. What's the difference between paying to see small animals fight versus paying to see chickens fight? The fighting dwarves are mostly unharmed, but the roosters die. But what about the implied statements made by paying to watch these acts? Do you support killing chickens for personal enjoyment? intend to support I like meat The number of chickens I have eaten is probably more than the number of roosters killed in a typical cockfight. (I've never seen a cockfight, by the way.) So what am I saying implicitly if I'm paying to watch a dwarven fight? Well, when I watch American football or basketball, I pay to see a combination of skill and genetic luck. These athletes are fast, tall and well trained. But skill doesn't seem to be the factor that attracts viewers to Snapchat videos. Other than people who come to bars on Thursday nights, people come because it's funny or it's humiliating. I pay to devalue what people place on other people. Who should devalue the human or the chicken? The rooster. Will the devaluation of the rooster, in turn, devalue the human being? Cockfighting can undermine people's respect for animals, encourage greed through gambling, and encourage violence. Is there anything good about cockfighting? In midget wrestling? In connection with this, the bar put on a show and offered people the opportunity to spend a Thursday night. A cockfight might be good on Thursday night. But cockfighting is more male-oriented, and I know that men in the Western world have worse friendships and higher suicide rates than women. I also know that one, women usually divorce men more often than vice versa and two, having friendship outside of your wife helps make you a happier and more interesting person for your wife.So my conclusion must be that men would lead happier lives and have a lower divorce rate if they participated in cock fighting. This sounds vague and absurd as a stand alone statement, but I really do believe male friendship is important to a functioning society and that male friendship is being lost. I'm not saying there aren't other avenues for male friendshipbut at this point in my analysis, the idea that we can condone midget wrestling and not cock fighting still befuddles me. After those questions I came up with a thesis: Midget wrestling is more morally repugnant than cock fighting because midget wrestling normalizes making fun of other humans, cock fighting does not and it gives men a needed avenue for friendship. Disclaimer: I believe midgets prefer to be called little people. Sorry if I offended you personally by casually using the word "dwarf". But I would love to know what you think about this kind of professional wrestling, about the movie Wolves of Wall Street, and how these events affect the perceptions of little people. Side note: You shouldn't argue about the morality of midget wrestling and the morality of cockfighting. My title is "CMV: People wouldn't want to see midget wrestling more than cockfighting." Hello CMV users! This is a footnote from the moderator. There are a few things to keep in mind. First, don't forget to [READ THE RULES]. If you find an incorrect comment, reporting it is more effective than simply ignoring it. Speaking of which, [downvoting doesn't change my mind]! If you're thinking of submitting a CMV yourself, check out the Popular Topics Wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to send us a message. Enjoy your CMV! | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
Unfortunately, my views are based solely on anecdotal evidence, sweeping generalizations, and mostly facts. So you might be able to do this easily. I know the typical boy and girl are raised very differently, which may be a problem in itself, but I'm just talking about the current attitudes towards women in games. When I was younger, I was just a normal geeky kid. I had friends who thought the same way, so I was thought of as a weird kid who would be teased by popular boys. More broadly, we received similar ridicule from girls about our interest in games and that games are made for losers. I have seen this attitude in all aspects of education. When I graduated from college, the boys' game was generally acceptable. Women still treated me as a loser because I said, "This is a good pastime," and I even received a lot of criticism like, "Why don't you make more productive time?" Now that the game is mainstream and popular and kind of cool, I've found that a lot of women enjoy playing games, and that's no surprise. wonderful. There's nothing wrong with that. We hope you have a wonderful time. However, I think they don't like the existing culture that was created because it was a men's club from the beginning. But it is they who have done it this way. I've heard over and over again in the days of people in the game industry and BBS about the shit we're going to get. Especially from women, they can make pretty cruel remarks. I don't care what other people say because it can't be that bad. It was always the girls who said something particularly touching to us. Because we wanted them to like us. Or because we wanted them to speak to us on an equal footing, not as if they belonged to us. So the nerdy boys have escaped to this sanctuary to play the game. Competitive online gaming has given the gaming community a huge boost. People can be quite competitive. women and men alike. Therefore, every element at your disposal is used to give you an advantage, hence this is trash talk. It is permissible to make completely absurd and exaggerated remarks to annoy or distract the other person. The closer to the truth, the better. Therefore, the insults that women receive are adapted to those that apply to them. I will not speak ill of you. But we all play enough (gamers aside) and know that it's a huge part of our culture. Feeling pitiful and teary-eyed? safety. But it's still there. So I think that's going to change over time, but that's mostly because of the women who have been treating average players like shit over the past few years. I grew up seeing change, so I'm in no hurry to change anything, and so are many of us. So the average player age varies between her 28 and her 35, but is always male. In some ways, we are a matter that will change over time as women take over the game on a large scale, as it has in the past. Oh, Farmville and such don't count as much. I'm talking about competitive games that require interaction. When he plays Bejeweled on his mobile phone, he will be playing the game. I am not a gamer. On the street he can BMX, but he wouldn't call himself a BMXer. Anyway, I'm a disgusted sexist idiot. I don't mean to be rude, but I know how you feel. CMV. We overburden each other that we don't care and we don't care because it's part of the game, but the mainstream media doesn't get it. They don't understand the opposite, so they take the comment at face value. Addendum: To the Prime Minister, who called me a "rape victim whistleblower" with astonishing honesty: We want to warn those you know about rapes that happen in completely different scenarios, in completely different circumstances. I am not talking. Since this is something that happens when you are vulnerable, and usually by someone you know, it is very difficult to take steps to protect yourself. We are talking about going out in the rain without an umbrella. I know I'm going to get wet and I'm going to get yelled at and yelled at. So bring an umbrella or stay indoors. | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
There was some discussion on rdatisbeauty about whether Bill Nighy is a scientist. I wanted to revisit this topic in this sub, but I want to start by saying that I don't have any major issues with Bill Nighy. One of the few problems I have with him is that he claims to be a scientist. That said, I think he is a great science educator and someone who can bring science to the general public. But I don't consider him a scientist. The standard definition of a scientist is someone who uses the scientific method to work on something. In my opinion, it is clear that he is not (see below), so he does not qualify. Below are some of the arguments I've seen and my rebuttals. "He's a scientist. On his show, he makes hypotheses and uses science to test those hypotheses." — He doesn't actually test the hypotheses. He demonstrates scientific principles and teaches people what the scientific method means (by performing its simulated applications). There are no real unknowns and he has not tested any real hypotheses. His program does not discover anything, nor does he seek to discover it. "He has a scientific background, so he's a scientist." - First of all, I don't even agree that he has a science degree. He has an engineering degree, but engineering is not a science. But even if you disagree with me on this point, it seems silly to say that people are independent of degrees. By this definition, Mr. Bean is an electrical engineer, Jerry Buss (Lakers owner) is a chemist, and Nobel Prize-winning neuroscientist Eric Kandell is actually a historian. . You are defined by what you do, not what your degree suggests. "He's a scientist because he contributed to science. He worked with many scientific people and helped design a sundial for a Mars rover." You cannot be a related person. If he did the same job as a non-firefighter, no one would call him a firefighter. When it comes to sundials, people seem to think of them as advanced devices necessary for the rover to function. A very ordinary old sundial. It is based on images posted by children and contains a message for future explorers. Its purpose was symbolic rather than technical. He was part of the team as well, so I don't know exactly what he did, but given the simplicity of this device, the role would have involved no more than basic engineering. (This is also not science). "One of the definitions of science is he is a learned man." Science, he is a scientist. I know this may sound abrupt, but I disagree with the dictionary on this point. As someone who is definitely a scientist, I disagree with a definition of a scientist that does not distinguish between knowledge producers and knowledge consumers. Also, while the line between knowledgeable and inexperienced is very blurred (do high school students study biology? The more you learn, the more you become a scientist?) It's also a problem that there seems to be a fairly sharp line separating who is in the business. We need to use the scientific method to answer unanswered or unanswered questions. Edit: I often see arguments that science and technology are one and the same, or at least can be ambiguous. First of all, I don't think any engineer or scientist would argue that they are one and the same. they have a completely different approach. [here] is a great article highlighting some important differences. Second, there are studies that blur the lines between the two of his, but Bill Nighy's technique does not fit into this category. He does not publish scientific papers, so unless he produces knowledge and decides not to share it with anyone, he is clearly not a scientist. Hello CMV users! This is a footnote from the moderator. There are a few things to keep in mind. First, don't forget to [READ THE RULES]. If you find an incorrect comment, reporting it is more effective than rejecting it. Speaking of which, [downvoting doesn't change my mind]! If you're thinking of submitting a CMV yourself, check out the Popular Topics Wiki first. Questions or concerns? Feel free to send us a message. Enjoy your CMV! | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
[here] is an article published in Psychological Science, one of the leading peer-reviewed psychological journals. Its purpose was to refute exaggerated claims about differences in male and female sexuality. One idea this seeks to disprove is that heterosexual men, on average, have more sexual partners than heterosexual women. It is presented as a popular belief used to uphold gender stereotypes about sexuality. The article then describes a bizarre psychological study that manipulated people into being more honest about their sexual history than usual. These men and women reported similar numbers of sexual partners. The authors proudly conclude: The bottom line: Do women … actually have fewer sexual partners than men? This was apparently meant to be proof against the stereotype that men want sex more than women. But as another psychologist pointed out in an obscure blog, heterosexual men and women naturally have the same number of sexual partners. Because every time a man has sex with a new woman, that woman also has sex with a new man. The average heterosexual man cannot have more sexual partners than the average heterosexual woman (other than chance differences due to differences in the number of men and women in the population). Such nonsense seems to be rampant in the social sciences. Psychology, sociology, anthropology, and related fields seem to be dominated by people who have no real intellectual interest in how the mind works or how society works. Rather, they were interested in advancing social justice and became social scientists to produce "research" that supports the social justice movement's perspective. So I don't see why "experts" make utterly stupid arguments against "gender stereotypes", publish them in reputable peer-reviewed journals, and don't retract their papers when they find obvious mistakes. we see [edited for clarity] As a result, the social sciences have not figured out much. For example, we still can't really explain why racism exists and how to eradicate it. I am very interested in how people defend social science against such accusations. I know this is a broad subject, but commenters are welcome to use any examples. But if it helps, it's an idea that I believe is wrong, and one that I believe was developed, or at least maintained, by social scientists influenced by social justice concerns. Here is a list of . 1) Humans are a 'blank slate' Our 'culture' determines our psychological traits much more than instincts. 2) that all human cultures are very different from each other; 3) that ancient hunter-gatherers and pre-state peoples were much more peaceful, caring, and cooperative than modern peoples; (The "noble savage" idea.) 4) This rape is generally a political act aimed at suppressing women as a class, not motivated by sexual desire. 5) that the differences in how men and women think and act are nothing more than differences in socialization. 6) That racism and sexism are basically the same thing. 7) White Westerners are particularly bigoted compared to other people. Yes, I think that's enough. [Edit: A lot of people said they didn't know what I was talking about, which in hindsight makes sense. What I wanted to achieve was, as if the only difference between racism and sexism was racism, that white racism against blacks and men's The idea was that they were the same in emotion and motivation, and that they would affect blacks and women alike. It applies when groups are distinguished by the color of their skin, and sexism applies when groups are distinguished by the nature of their genitalia. Social psychologists commonly explain racism and sexism using the same theories as social identity theory or stereotype content models (look it up). But in practice, attitudes towards race and gender follow very different patterns. If you would like to discuss this further, please say so. ] Hello CMV users! This is a footnote from the moderator. There are a few things to keep in mind. First, don't forget to [READ THE RULES]. If you find an incorrect comment, reporting it is more effective than rejecting it. Speaking of which, [downvoting doesn't change my mind]! If you're thinking of submitting a CMV yourself, check out the Popular Topics Wiki first. Questions or concerns? Feel free to send us a message. Enjoy your CMV! | paraphrase | ai-generated | 0 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.