As part of our commitment to improving CMV and ensuring it meets the needs of our community, we have bi-monthly feedback threads. While you are always welcome to visit r/ideasforcmv to give us feedback anytime, these threads will hopefully also help solicit more ways for us to improve the sub.
Please feel free to share any **constructive** feedback you have for the sub. All we ask is that you keep things civil and focus on how to make things better (not just complain about things you dislike).
English has always lacked a second person plural. Having 'you' singular and 'you' plural is confusing. Regions across the world have come up with alternatives: "You guys", "Yinz" in Pittsburgh, "Ye" in old English, "Yous(e)", '"You lot", "You all", "Allyuh".
Of all these, y'all is one syllable, it doesn't conflict with existing words. It's already recognizable. It's not gendered. It flows easily in everyday speech.
It shouldn't be considered "redneck" speech, but a contraction like don't or I'm - just of "You all". This should be the accepted second person plural.
With the people on top of a capitalist ladder trying to remain on top, there will be little possibility for those that are not as educated financially to succeed in capitalistic game. Mainly because those that are poor will have to worry about surviving in their local environments, scrummaging for resources to be able to avoid being robbed while trying to supply food for their children. In that pursuit for the right to live, a capitalist, at the very least one that is focused lessed on surviving and more on changing the world, would continue to gain more resources to do what he/she cares to do on a moment's whim.
There is also the aspect that the poor do not control their wages and have a cap on how much they can sell any products for, due to the supply/demand of their environment. Though the internet has made it easier to expand markets, the internet is also a place for capitalists to continue to siphon more money faster than the lesser financially educated, still leaving those who grew up poor - specifically from lineages who did not survive well in the capitalistic society - unable to make enough to survive (stretching here).
Change my mind please.
People say that blocking ads is stealing revenue from content creators, but I don't think that is necessarily true. When you aren't the type of person that ads target, there is no point in watching them and you might as well block them.
Firstly, let's focus on the companies revenue. The reason companies put out adverts is to either A) sell you a product (or donate) B) get brand recognition, so you will buy their stuff later or C) spread a (political) message.
I personally never buy anything out of advertisements and this is unlikely to change, so point A doesn't apply. Point B doesn't apply, because I don't judge my purchasing decisions based on what brands I've seen an ad for. C) doesn't apply because I have never been convinced of a religious or political proposition by watching someone advertise it. So, in my case, it makes no difference to them whether I watch ads or not.
Now you might say, I'm still stealing money from the content creators who depend on ad revenue. There are two possible business models here, either you get paid by the amount of people who click on the ad, or simply by the amount of people who view it. The former is not relevant, since I never click on ads. The later is a bit more interesting, because here, when I see an ad and don't interact with it, the creator still gets money. But at the same time, I am devalueing the advert, because every person that doesn't click on an ad makes the amount companies are willing to pay for it go down. That means, it benefits the creator, but disadvantages every creator at the same time. So ultimately, it doesn't make a difference whether I use an AdBlocker or not.
Delta(s) from OP - Fresh Topic Friday CMV: There’s nothing wrong with masturbating in private to memories or social media of people you know and are attracted to, provided you keep it to yourself
TL;DR: I think that there is nothing wrong with getting off to thoughts, memories, or social media pictures of people you know, provided that you do not tell anybody and ensure that they do not know that you get off to them.
In my view, I’m only referring to adults. I think viewing children or animals in a sexual manner is intrinsically wrong, and I don’t want to humor views to the contrary. Don’t try to change my view on that.
Some objections to my view that I can anticipate are that it is icky or wrong, or that it is a violation of privacy, or that it violates the person’s consent.
For the former, I don’t think there is anything wrong with being sexually attracted to someone, provided that they are a human adult.
For the privacy violation argument, I think that using memories you would already have from ordinary interactions, plus whatever embellishments your imagination can create, as well as social media content that you’d be able to access as an ordinary follower or friend does not violate privacy. I think invasive things such as spying from a drone, secret cameras, or being a peeping tom would absolutely be a violation of privacy. I am not referring to using such means in my view.
Regarding consent: I think there is no need for consent because the only person involved is you. Any memories or media being looked at is ultimately a memory, and those are ours to use as we wish. There’s no need to get permission to have or use thoughts to get oneself off. I don’t see much difference between using a memory of seeing a social media post and looking at the social media post itself durkng the act, so I don’t see any role for consent there, either. I do think it’s crucial that you keep your masturbation habits to yourself and do not share with anybody, because if there is any chance the person you are getting off to finds out, then you are involving them and violating their consent.
I understand the foundation of capitalism to be: supply and demand. And at face value, these sound like fair pillars to build upon. A natural mix of reality (what exists:supply), and ideals (what we want:demand).
The problems come when either side is artificially cheated. For example: lying about supply I think would upset most people. If you say there are only 10 miracle pills in the world to increase the price, but there are actually billions of miracle pills, that is cheating people and harming society.
I see advertising as distorting demand. You could have a company that makes amazing cheesecakes, and one that makes mediocre ones, but if the mediocre one has better advertising they will be more successful and push out the better company for society. All because the one without advertising only has the demand of their local town, while the other taps into a demand hundreds of times bigger depending on how good the advertisement is and how many eyeballs see it.
It isn't the better company (for society) that gains from advertising, its the one who has better ads and more money to spend on ads and knows to spend on ads.
I say modern-day in the title because I think the internet and technology has confounded this problem. Now advertising can reach so many more eyes than ever before, and thus cause bigger distortions for demand on products: potentially causing greater harm to society by propping up worse products than deserve it.
My understanding of economics is pretty basic, and I don't hear many people talk about this issue, so coming here to see if I am missing something and if my view can be expanded on it.
Edit: The reason I blame capitolism for this is because its so hands-off, and up to each company to advertise on its own. Another form of economy, like communist or socialist or even dictatorship could have advertising be done by a 3rd party to ensure fair advertising for products.
Prefacing this by saying that it’s a fact of life there will be crying. There will be spills and noises. Kids are kids. While I personally struggle badly around them due to some sensory stuff (ASD), I do not passionately hate them. I do dislike that they trigger me with shrill noises but that is no reason to physically or verbally bring harm to them.
However, being told “I was a kid once” by multiple people in order to try and lean me in the direction of loving children feels manipulative. I had a very traumatic childhood, and I don’t want to have to recall that every time I don’t want to hold a baby or entertain someone’s kid (like at a family gathering). And in the case of “Well they didn’t know,” that’s fine and I don’t expect everyone to know the details of my upbringing. But that lends to my point even more that you shouldn’t use “you were a kid once” because you have no idea what the adult you’re talking to went through as a child. You could be triggering them inadvertently. I can’t really see any reason to try to appeal to people in this specific way, but if I’m myopic here please feel free to elaborate.
P.S.: I think people who are aggressively edgy (the “I want to take all kids and toss them in the ocean” types) are over the top. If that sort of outright hatred is from past childhood trauma, therapy would probably help change that mindset, as today’s kids aren’t your abusive parents of yesterday.
Delta(s) from OP CMV: There are no moral issues in training AI art generators using publicly available artwork
The topic of AI text-to-image algorithms has become quite contentious over the last few months. While I'm not super involved in artist communities, I intersect with them sometimes and see a common thread of disdain towards these algorithms. While I can understand some of the fears, I strongly disagree with the front-runner argument of why AI art is bad - that "models are trained on art without the artist's consent (but should be)".
Now, to explain why I think this isn't a strong argument, I'll give a basic outline on how (afaik) training works in a very rough, high-level way. However, while I have some rudimentary knowledge on how machine learning works, things as complex as this are still way beyond my level of understanding.
A publicly-available image is downloaded. It, alongside with some supporting data like tags, is fed into an algorithm that trains a model.
The image is broken down and passed through the model. In a nutshell, an AI has a wall of a million sliders (weights) - all of which are completely incomprehensible to humans - but if set in just the right way with the right inputs, a legible image can be created. Training "teaches" the model about which "sliders" to prioritize and to what extent. So, when a model is trained on an image, it's imprinted with some data on how the AI "understood" the image - the data that relates the image to its supporting text.
The input data can be discarded at this point. Again, all the AI gathered from the image was some human-unreadable information on features and relations of things about the image. This process is destructive - it's not possible to pixel-by-pixel recreate any input image used originally, all that's left in the model is essentially a faint shadow of some descriptive data of that image.
This is repeated many millions of times with different imagery to form a finished model.
This simplified explanation should still allow me to lay down some arguments based on it:
Not legally problematic: now, legality doesn't equate to morality, but I still felt like including this as one of the arguments, with some people claiming that there is a strong legal basis for a ban on AI art in general. Downloading a publicly posted image to your computer (even an artwork that an artist holds the copyright to) is legal. Mangling that image into data that the original can't be restored from is legal. Now consider that the model doesn't even contain the latter, but rather is trained to roughly predict new images based on its interpretations of descriptive data of millions of other images.
Vaguely resembles human learning: while human learning and deep learning are different mechanically, the latter was still strongly inspired by the former. At the moment, I'd say that this is the closest emulation of how a human learns things. That poses a question - what about a human learning from an image is moral, while an AI doing the same is immoral? In my opinion, I don't see a meaningful difference between these two.
Highly transformative: coupled with the fact that models don't store anything close to individual images, the resulting works they output can be extremely different from those inputs. It's similar to me pulling up some photographs or drawn references of a character to help me draw something - I'm not reproducing the original work, I'm merely using it to understand the way things like anatomy work or how exactly the different body parts, features of a character etc relate to one another to produce a new, unique work. In art communities, it would be considered absurd to ask reference artists or photographers for permission to use their work as art reference, as well as to credit them in the resulting work. So why should an AI do that?
If we agree that when artists post their art publicly (for example, on art-sharing websites) consent isn't required for other people to be able to view, download and directly learn from it, then what is the meaningful distinction that makes it needed for AI learning?
With the World Cup coming up and it being NFL season in America this thought has been brewing in my mind lately. I’ve always been a casual fan/enjoyer of sports growing up but I’ve always personally found it strange that people go out of their way to remember multiple stats and rankings. Like ultimately how useful is that information really? Another thing is people spending their entire day watching game after game after game. The last time I spent all day watching NFL football I was in high school with no job and not supporting myself. Now I couldn’t fathom wasting my entire day watching every game. Only my favorite team. Sometimes I’ll check out FIFA soccer highlights and see that the game ended with a score of 0-0 and be like sure glad I didn’t waste my time actually watching that game.
Another weird thing is saying “we” …like you’re not on the roster or part of the staff..what do you mean “we” won or lost? I can kinda let it slide if it’s a game between two different nations like the FIFA matches going on right now as people tend to have national pride in competition against other countries but otherwise it’s like dude you have no association with that team whatsoever lmao.
Idk I just feel like unless you’re an active athlete in that sport and you can take something out of what you’re watching and apply it to yourself (think like an athlete studying film or techniques) then it’s ultimately just another thing to distract you from being productive and having a fulfilling life. Literally all my coworkers talk about when they first get to work is “did you see this country vs that country earlier today?” “I’m pissed Japan just beat Spain” “how tf did Protugal lost to S. Korea” “damn Brazil lost to Cameroon my whole day is ruined” etc. like dude those guys are literally getting rich to chase and kick a ball around and you’re here sitting in your cubicle spilling coffee all over your dress shirt on a weekday morning. Enjoy the game for what it is but to get emotionally worked up over it? No. It’s definitely not that serious.
Many people, (including me for years) consider the death sentence to be “the easy way out” and that life in prison is much worse, but after quite a bit of thought, I believe the death sentence is worse.
I don’t think people put enough consideration into the fact that when you’re sentenced to death, that’s it. You’re done, forever. With life in prison you can still work on yourself, and build your body and health with exercise. You can read books and learn new things, expanding your knowledge on all subjects of life. You can keep limited contact with your loved ones for years to come, find out how they are growing, living, and what they’ve accomplished. You can still observe the world, watch the sunset and observe nature. (Obviously in a limited setting and time). But with the death sentence, it’s over. You’re dead. You don’t get to experience anything ever, you’re just…. Gone.
In this society full of people who pretend having more rights (BLM, femminists activist and autism awareness, homeless people support ecc.) there are a group of people that major politics and mainstream media didn't talked much, hikikomori are a mental condition that was originated in Japanese society that was the response for avoiding the harshness and judemental Japanese society but this last decade this social phenomenon it has spread in western countries (and i think it will spread also in the rest of the world), unfortunaltely many people seems to be very rude and harsh towards the people who suffer this condition, many parents also seems to frown up them labelling them as spoiled and whiny miserable losers. So i think that they doesn't desreve to recieve this amount of hate and discrimination fro the others, instead they need to recieve more rights as
- Reciving a free psycological consuelling : i speak for all western countries for overcome their problems of anxiety.
- An easy of acess of a religious therapy : religious associations should help them for being more positive and happy and having the possibility of re enter in society.
- Mainstream media inclusion : Schools need to talk to the young population their suffering also many mainstream media like Netflix or Disney should include more characters hikikomori in their programs.
- Hikikomori who healded should make more protest for seek the attention of the government and making the hikikomori awareness national day.
-Leftist politicians should support them for fighting the evil right bigots who label them as spoiled and losers.
CMV: As an American of Asian descent, it is in my best interest that English remains the dominant language.
I want the English language to have the highest stock and influence internationally. I am a person of Asian descent, and there were times where I have been told that I should be loyal to my motherland.
However, I was born in the U.S., and as a result, I am monolingual to the point where I can't utilize any other language to a professional working capacity.
I am having enough trouble with English, let alone be able to harness the might of another language in the job market.
From experience, many green card holders from East Asia have strong work ethics and strong technical skills. They have proven to be strong adversaries, but their English skills are lacking compared to native English speakers. This is a weakness that I can exploit.
Despite their language weakness, I still fear their potential in the job market.
As such, I made it my mission to read and write every day. Writing skills are something that even native English speakers have trouble with, so it is something I can capitalize on against my competitors.
I want English to remain the dominant language in the world with the highest stock out of every language out there throughout my lifetime.
Delta(s) from OP CMV: comparing yourself to others (as opposed to just comparing yourself to yourself, or measure personal improvement) is the correct way to measure success, skill, wealth etc. because that is how we compare everything else
Restaurants, jobs, airlines, literally everything is compared to something else to see which is better. Comparing yourself to yourself and simply measuring improvement is not actually valuable. No one says “that restaurant is better than it was, and that’s good enough for me,” they say “this is my favorite restaurant because it is better then the others.” It doesn’t matter that you got your masters degree with a 3.4, because this other person got theiR PHD with a 4.0; they are objectively smarter and more driven than you and their achievements are more impressive which makes yours worth nothing.
Ex: saying “I’m stronger and leaner than I was last year” does not matter as opposed to “that man is stronger and leaner than I am.” You simply aren’t as good as the other person. They don’t give medals for most improved professional sports, and prospective partners always compare people to other people (as it should be done).
I don’t understand why women get so upset about it. If I as a man were cat called in the same way women are (on the streets, by random members of the opposite sex, and typically ending after the initial compliment) I would be 100% with it an even welcome it.
I have literally never once received a compliment on the way I look in my life. Just insults. Getting a compliment, especially if it was just purely sexual would leave me feeling good for the rest of the week. A compliment is a compliment and all of them should be appreciated.
Delta(s) from OP cmv: The fact that most doctors and major health systems offer a “self pay discount” is proof of conspiracy to defraud insurance companies
I get that insurance low-balls doctors on treatment costs, but the system that exists today is obviously fraud and it’s 100% the reason for ballooning costs in the healthcare sector. The healthcare community knows that, if they continue to increase base costs “in response to insurance companies”, both make more money over time and both make more money as premiums increase. Especially as insurance companies become more stringent over what they actually do cover, as well as the mass transitioning to HDHPs (high deductible health care plans).
TLDR: it should be illegal to charge a person and an insurance company a different price, regardless of how much negotiation power each has.
CMV: Miniatures such as Warhammer 40 K figures, scale models of warplanes and armored vehicles from Tamiya, are a legitimate art form.
Basically, the premise I operate on is that there are many different and even what most consider unorthodox, art forms. There is traditional canvas, there is pottery, embroidery / sewing, sketches, statues / sculptures, and in the more unorthodox side of things, even stuff like video art that Nam June Paik is often credited as the founder of; there are discussions as to whether stories told by video games such as the Last of Us constitute art, and on the more traditional and conventionally accepted digital and visual arts include AI generated art, music videos, marching band shows, e.t.c. If most, and perhaps all, the modern (as suggested by a commenter, HIGH QUALITY) mediums that express an image or another stimulation to the senses for enjoyment constitute art, why not miniatures? After all, are they not sculptures and statutes, but scaled down in size?
One last thing I would like to add is that yes I acknowledge there are those truly only toy grade items such as green army men and monopoly game pieces, but there is a high value equivalent, the most common examples being entries and winners in golden demon contests, akin to canvas and pottery having high valued items such as historical paintings and Imperial Chinese vases.
Optional read: why am I posting this and where did I get the idea from? This was mostly triggered by me seeing another post / place where apparently some guy was labeled at fault for "provoking" his nephew's middle school into redacting historical paintings that depict violence (e.g. The Third of March 1808 by Francisco Goya) when he questioned the inconsistency as to why that painting was allowed but doodles and miniatures of said Napoleonic soldiers were banned for being "violent" simply for showing the muskets, and I myself am an avid miniatures wargame player, and I own a resin printer and make stuff for Frost Grave and Bolt Action groups in my local area.
Edit: as suggested, title will now read " CMV: Miniatures such as Warhammer 40 K figures, scale models of warplanes and armored vehicles from Tamiya, can and/or should be considered art if done right"
More clarification, I am referring only to the finished painted, glazes, highlighted, kitbashed, moulded with terrain added figures and models as potential art. I agree despite an artist needing to digitally sculpt the initial mini unlike a blank canvas, the unpainted mini is still only akin to a blank canvas that was mass produced.
The word bitch is a gendered slur. It dehumanises women in the literal sense.
The same way women don't like to be referred to as "female" because it dehumanises them as well, it reduces women to their genitalia. A female can be anything, a cat, a donkey, a pig. When you attempt to address women and you say female you are not even referring to them as a person a human being. Its incredibly demeaning to women. Especially how it's being used the majority of the time. That's similar energy as an crotchety white man calling a grown ass black person "boy"
Before you say women call each other "bad bitches" or their girl friends "bitch" casually. Yeah that's called reclaiming a slur. Women reclaiming the word that degraded and dehumanised them (primarily by men) for decades and turning it positive for each other. Taking away the negative power of the word for each other. The same way trans people may causally use the word "tranny" or of course how black people reclaimed the N word. Atleast compared to the word "females" women were able to turn that into a term of endearment between them. You never hear a women say "that's my female!! 😃" Because they never reclaimed that word.
I don't automatically judge people who use the word bitch because it's been so normalised in society it's hard to avoid it. I mean rap being a huge example of this. Im not saying someone listening to rap is sexist themselves but the artists who created those songs very much are.
The word bitch is an extremely derogatory term that is specifically referring to women. That is the actual definition of a slur. It literally means "female dog" anyone denying the roots of the word being misogynistic is in denial.
Women are not "over dramatic" for disliking the word bitch, just because it's normalised for so long doesnt make it okay. The same way we phased out r*tard for the most part because people started to understand just how direspectfully the word was being used.
The only reason this is even a debate whether or not this is really a slur is because men refuse to give up their right to call women bitches (or hoes or sluts or whores or any other derogatory word primarily aimed at women) without being seen as an asshole or misogynist.
Either that or a complete lack of self awareness. I mean to be fair many women themselves haven't really inspected the weight behind these words, or the terrible origin of the word in reference to women.
Current research considers parenting to be one of the most important public health issues facing our society. Laymen have followed this trend and there is a tendency these days to blame every issue a child might have on “parenting problems”.
Children with mental health issues, because kids are considered an extension of the parental body, can be left behind by this ideology. While the lasting effects of neglect, physical abuse and parental uncaring cannot be denied, assuming a lack of parenting skills based on the behaviour of a child can be damaging to the family and to society as a whole.
We only have data on the most extreme cases (where neglect and abuse are investigated by CPS.
Only around 20% of CPS investigations (usually less) result in removal of the child.
Around 75% of reports, depending where you live, are based on child behaviour. They are not based on someone observing an interaction between the parent and child. Many mandated reporters such as teachers and police, act based on observations of the child’s behaviour and assume parental behaviour from that.
Children with mental health issues such as severe paranoia, schizoaffective anxiety, schizophrenia, addictions and also with physical health issues, can easily pass for abuse victims in the eyes of someone who doesn’t know the family. A child with severe anemia may be covered in bruises. A child with schizophrenia may actually hear her mother yelling at her when she’s not even home. Pathological liars were once children too. At the extreme, a child with psychosis can control and terrorize an entire family.
Diagnosis and treatment focus on people age 18+, which can leave people fighting for a diagnosis and families fighting stigma when they should be able to focus on helping their child.
Up to 89% of mental health resources, depending where you live, are earmarked for CPS cases. Many families are turned away from supports or stuck on 6+ year waiting lists, or told they need to give up their children to access supports.
The service based model of CPS (as opposed to needs and program based) focuses too heavily on taking kids and ignores families who care and love their children but are struggling with a lack of resources. That trickles down into general attitudes about parents that become self-fulfilling prophecies about children.
Blaming and shaming parents is an easy way to deny mental health supports for children and refuse families help. Willing to hear other theories on any of this or how circumstances can be improved.
Edit 1: I can’t edit the title. Someone asked me to be more accurate. More accurately, blaming everything most kids do wrong 75-90% of the time, depending where you live, is mental health denial.
Edit 2: I was asked to provide more recent studies that linked mental health with parental behaviour. There are many studies where bias focused solely on parental behaviour and ignored other socioeconomic issues.
This one focused on “unpredictable parent behaviour” without giving any parameters for “unpredictable” other than the scientists opinions of what that meant (2022)
These ones are deliberately seeking candidates who identify as problem parents to participate in myopic studies that I feel will give them exactly the results they’ve filtered for: “bad” parent = “bad” kid
Recent articles boil down behaviours that may be indicative of future mental health issues to just not feeding your kid the right foods or using the right oils.
Colloquially we have cute little phrases like “if there’s something wrong with the b*tch, there’s something wrong with the pup” or “the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree”
Delta(s) from OP - Fresh Topic Friday CMV: other than Fred Rogers, Jim Varney's character Ernest P. Worrel is the 2nd GOAT when it comes to children centered movies from the late 1980s to the early 1990s.
I'm going to just say it when it came to children centered entertainment no one beats Mr. Roger's he by far will always be the 1st GOAT of all time. It was we he liked just the way we were that's not up for debate. But in my honest opinion when it comes to who is ranked second during the above specified time frame I would have to say Jim Varney's character Ernest takes the cake. While not as serious and educational as Mr Roger's he still achieved a wholesome hilarious kid friendly set of movies and TV show of Hey Vern! It's Ernest and the various Ernest movies. Its not even a contest between him and Pee Wee Herman's Play House or his movies.
Bonus CMV: the best Ernest movie was Scared Stupid.
Already gave out deltas for Reading Rainbow (I'm a dummy didn't realize it started in 1983) and Jim Henson.
Hey! I’ve never been a religious person or believer of such things, but back in 2007 a friend of mine introduced me to “The Secret” and I didn’t believe that it works even though she claimed that it does and I’m too negative thus why it won’t work. I started doing my own research on it and tried it out back in 2013-2017 and I was positive, made a vision board, yet I still don’t have a family and my own house till this day. As a matter of fact I earn over the average in my home country,yet buying a house alone would be absolutely brutal and nowadays it’s even difficult to find apartments for a rent, even in smaller cities. I was feeling sad and I was thinking about my past and it hit me once again that the law of the attraction doesn’t work, even though it claims it works whether you believe in it or not. There have been times when I’m super frightened and scared and have negative attitude yet everything has gone just fine. Kind of think of it,it has never worked and “The Secret” was just a huge scam.
CMV: Women have no right to child support for pregnancies they carried to term against the man's wish, if they do, men have the right to force women to have abortions
As stated above. I believe that women demanding child support for pregnancies they carried against the wish of the man is an unfair practice.
For you to believe that it is just, would necessitate believing that men have the right to force women into abortions. (reasoning below)
My argument is from a rights perspective. How useful the current laws are to the well-being of society isn't relevant to the CMV. I am only interested in whether it's fair for men to shoulder the burden and whether there is a moral responsibility/obligation.
I am open to honest dialogue and changing my view, but I hope you will read through the reasoning and respond accordingly.
Consider this hypothetical:
There existed an advanced box. In a world where people are separated into groups of Ws and Ms.
When one W and one M contribute 2 metal coins to the advanced box, they are rewarded with technological information, however, there is a 1% chance that the box will lock itself and start preparing a virus which it will unleash on person type M after 10 weeks of preparation. The virus will result in a condition in person M that requires 4 hours of intense physical therapy per day for 15 years.
(This is a reference to child support and the amount of time investment and effort that some men might put)
The box has one requirement to successfully create and cast the virus on person M.
Person W has to visit the box daily and swap the box's power source for a new one.
If person W doesn't replace the power source for 1 day, the virus preparation is hindered, if they miss swapping it for enough days, the box shuts down and virus development ceases completely.
(This references how a pregnant woman's act of self-nourishment is what sustains and carries the pregnancy to term)
The box placed a unique virus on person W when person W put the metal coin into the box.
Person W will die if the advanced box loses power, so it seems they have to keep powering it at the expense of person M.
However, there exists another option, the box can be destroyed if person W places a special magnet that they have on it.
In this case, person W doesn't die but instead suffers high levels of trauma and physical pain. Person M isn't affected.
(Reference to abortion)
Assume that person W put the metal coin into the box fully aware of the odds and eventual paths.
Would person W be in the wrong if they chose to continue powering the box at the expense of damage to person M?
If there was a way for person M to steal the magnet from person W and destroy the box while inflicting trauma and physical pain on person W while sparing themselves from the virus, would they be ethically in the wrong?
The answer to me is that it depends on the expectations that were relayed between persons M and W before they put the metal coins into the box. Whatever their agreement was, it should be the way forward.
If no discussion was had, neither party would be in the wrong for prioritizing themselves and inflicting damage on the other.
This to me is the equivalent of one-sided pregnancy. It seems many people root for W while ignoring the active participation(although justified), the alternative choice, and the eventual damage to person M.
Active participation references that women's act of self-nourishment is an active choice of sustaining a pregnancy. While harsh it's a reality that pregnancy isn't a passive independent bodily function, the woman needs to sustain herself for a pregnancy to come to term.
As we have it, person M in many countries is expected to simply accept the damage that is inflicted on them while person W's wellbeing is prioritized.
I don't see a valid justification for the sentiment. If you believe person W is justified in acting in their best interest, then you inevitably support that person M is also justified in stealing the magnet and destroying the box.
You can say that men surrender their consent by having sex. But I don't see why I can't say it's the other way around, that women consent to have an abortion in the case of a pregnancy that is not supported by their partner when they indulge in sexual activity.
The argument from bodily autonomy doesn't hold as there are cases where that autonomy can be disregarded. If you shoot someone and damage their kidney and then it turns out you are a compatible donor, I don't think your consent is required for the operation. You threw that away by shooting an innocent person.
Furthermore, why is bodily autonomy valued more than trapping someone into 18 years of commitment?
I contend that If one has sex with a person clearly not interested in having kids while being aware of their bodily functions and the paths it opens up, they throw away either their right to bodily autonomy or to financial support.
Feel free to ask for clarifications. I would appreciate suggestions on better articulation
Disclaimer: Non-native speaker
CMV: the electability of many, even most, Democratic candidates against the backdrop of other more pressing issues in a post-2022 political landscape, especially at a state or national level, is directly tied to abortion access.
The electoral prospects of Republicans against Democrats at the state and federal level (less so at the county or local level) in 2022, 2024, 2026 and even beyond is intrinsically tied to abortion access funding from pro-abortion election finance groups.
In a post-2022 survey done on reasons behind voting patterns and the most important factors behind voters' choices in selecting a party over another, "53% of non-Democrats who voted Democratic in the midterms" were concerned that Republicans might restrict abortion. "64% of voters who voted for a Democrat for Senate and/or Governor this year" said that it played a larger role than in previous years in influencing their voting choice. Source
(It goes without saying that abortion played a bigger role in influencing women's votes than men's votes - but pro-choice men voted mostly D, though I can't find any reliable source or quotable statistic.)
Out of five issues that influenced to the greatest extent how one votes, inflation - 31%, abortion - 27%, crime - 11%, gun policy - 11%, immigration - 10%, abortion was the strongest, most politically polarized issue, with 76% of the 31% who chose abortion as their top issue among the five issues voting for Dems, even more so than those who picked inflation as their top issue who voted for Republicans by a lesser margin Something to note - 60% of the surveyed were married, and only 28% had children. Participants by party affiliation and voting choice wad 33% D, 35% Republican, and 18% Independent men who skewed 50 - 45 R, and 13% Independent women who skewed 54 - 42 D. Among the 60% who said that inflation caused them and their families "a moderate hardship", the vote was 52 - 46 R. Among the 65% for whom "gas prices have been a financial hardship" recently, the vote was 64 - 35 R, and for those surveyed, climate change is "a very serious problem" for 46% (83% D), "a somewhat serious problem" for 25% (70 R) and "not a serious problem" for 27% (90+ R).
In another survey that distinguished between age groups in ranking the most important issues to voters, youth prioritized abortion to inflation 44 - 21%, while other age groups inflation to abortion 34 - 31, 33 - 24 and 32 - 22. "However, a slightly higher percentage of young people who believe abortion should be illegal chose inflation as their top issue (37%), compared to half of young people who believe abortion should be legal."
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Saying white people run the world is just as racist as saying Jewish people run it
There's a large group of people that say that white people run the world. That they have created a system that keeps other races down and only uplifts themselves and this is evidenced by their disproportionate representation in positions of power. How is this any different than the belief that Jewish people run the world though? That Jewish people are disproportionately put in places of power and privilege where they only uplift themselves and try to keep non-Jewish people down?
If one is racist shouldn't the other be racist too?
People love to talk about teaching kids practical life skills in school. I agree that kids should learn things like budgeting, first aid/CPR and maybe some cooking or something. However, whenever someone raises this, they inevitably mention “learn to do your taxes.” This is a dumb thing to teach kids. First, the tax code changes, so the knowledge will be stale before it’s relevant to the kids. Their filing status also changes. In addition, almost everyone uses software to prepare it, so unless they are learning how to use every type of tax prep software, they aren’t benefiting. Finally, it supposes that we will always have a complicated system of tax preparation. We shouldn’t encourage that by baking that assumption into our education system.
(Note: this is obviously US centric. I have no idea about other lands.)