Best products from r/changemyview

We found 56 comments on r/changemyview discussing the most recommended products. We ran sentiment analysis on each of these comments to determine how redditors feel about different products. We found 1,099 products and ranked them based on the amount of positive reactions they received. Here are the top 20.

Top comments mentioning products on r/changemyview:

u/aabbccaabbcc · 1 pointr/changemyview

> What you are trying to do is impose a moral scale, a ranking, on life that says that taking this life is moral but taking this one is not.

So, I'll try to get this straight. Please set me straight if I have any of this wrong.

You're asserting that in moral terms, ALL LIFE is equal, completely regardless of its nervous system, capacity to perceive the world, form social connections, experience emotion, or suffer. For example, a herd of cows should be given exactly the same ethical consideration as a leaf of spinach: none whatsoever. Right? Because humans have a moral mandate to kill. And since all nonhuman life is equally worthless in these ethical terms, according to our moral mandate, we are allowed to destroy as much life as we please in order to eat what we'd like. Deciding if I want to be responsible for the "death" of a few beans or some spinach, or be responsible for a lifetime of captivity ended by a violent death of a cow (not to mention all the "plant death" that was necessary to make it grow in the first place).

Except humans. We can't kill each other, because we can acknowledge rights for each other.

What would you say about very young children and or mentally handicapped humans who don't have the mental capacity to "respect and protect the rights of others?" If this is where rights come from, then obviously not all humans have rights. Or is there more to it than just that?

> The arbitrary categorization of one life as more valuable than another is not made for moral reasons. It cannot be because morality is binary. A choice is either moral or immoral.

Please cite any theory of morality or ethics at all that says that there is no gradient of morality. While you're at it, please cite any theory of morality or ethics at all that says that if you must kill something, then you're justified in killing anything you want.

Actually, if you could cite anything to support your position, instead of just asserting things, that would be great! In particular, I'd love to see any credible ethical argument that all nonhuman life should be treated exactly equally in ethical terms.

> If this theory is true then the pure herbivores of our species did not survive natural selection - the omnivores proved better adapted for survival.

So, we should take our ethical cues from natural selection, then? I thought you said earlier that we shouldn't.

Regarding "human efficiency," what do you think of the environmental destruction caused by animal agriculture? Or, if human efficiency is only measured on an individual scale, how is it affected by the mounting evidence that eating animals isn't so great? (each word is a distinct link.) What about the antibiotics issue? Please address this.

> Yes - if both animals and plants suffer and several lives have been given already to create the animal then the animal causes the least loss of life and the least suffering. How many plants do you have to slaughter and digest screaming to equal one animal?

You said earlier that plants can't scream. And can't suffer. And the answer, once more with feeling, is: about a 10:1 ratio! Remember? I linked those wikipedia articles for you! Did you read them?

Which reminds me, I've been careful to only cite things that are reasonably "impartial": news articles, PubMed, wikipedia, that sort of thing. Nothing from the Humane Society or anything like that, since I imagine that you'll probably just dismiss it. If you'd be willing to read those things seriously, then by all means let me know and I'll share a few. And if you wouldn't mind addressing some of the things that those linked articles address, I'd appreciate it.

I'll go back a couple posts of yours, if you don't mind, because I forgot to address this point:

> The animal would have eaten the plants regardless of your decision. By eating the animal you are not participating in the death or the potential suffering of the plants.

Yes you are! You've paid for the animal to be bred, raised, fed, and slaughtered. You are contributing to the demand for this process. Are you claiming that by supporting something financially is completely divorced from all ethical responsibility? Please explain this, since I don't understand this view.

> Farming an animal for food is not torture. Torturing an animal for the sake of seeing it suffer is morally wrong.

Well, if you're in America, more than 99% of the time it is. Is it permissible to torture an animal to eat it more cheaply?

Jonathan Safran Foer's book Eating Animals, by the way, is an excellent and very honest investigation of the ethics of eating meat. It's written from the perspective of someone who's oscillated between eating meat and not eating it for his life so far, and I hope you'll believe me when I say that it is absolutely not judgmental of those who do. There's no way around the fact that it's been a human tradition for a very long time, and there's a great deal of sentimentality around it, and this book approaches the subject with great intellectual and moral honesty. I hope you'll at least consider reading it, if you would like to, I'd even be happy to send you my copy in the mail (although I'd probably be unwilling to give out my address over the internet), and you can keep it after that. And if you're right about the ethics of it, you'll blast through it in a few days and come away completely unchanged, since your position is totally bulletproof. If there's no threat, all you have to lose is a few hours of reading time. And, if you don't want to read anything, he's given a couple brief interviews 1, 2, 3, 4 that you can watch in a few minutes (the longest is an hour).

And of course, since I'm suggesting some reading material for you (I hope you're actually reading those articles by the way... it's hard to tell, since you haven't address any of them except the ADA abstract, which you dismissed with an appeal to nature), it's only fair that if you recommend any books or articles or films to me at all, I solemnly swear to read (or watch) them with an open mind. I'll even get back to you about what I think!

I think it's extremely telling that the industry has fought so hard to pass laws against documenting abuse in their operations. Would you agree that given a choice between cheap meat that has been raised in torturous conditions, and expensive meat that was raised in a way to give the animal a good life while it was alive, one has a moral obligation to choose the one that caused less suffering? This, I expect, is in line with your moral mandate to kill. After all:

> Certainly limiting the amount of pain inflicted is a desirable choice.

Try this: go to your refrigerator, and look at the label for the animal flesh you already have in there. See what farm it's from, and look up a phone number. Give them a call, and pretend that you're interested in taking a tour of their facilities to see the conditions. Then, when you're at the farmer's market, find someone selling meat and ask if it would be possible to go see the farm sometime.

Look, I don't want to be hostile. Clearly we disagree on some very fundamental things (like the notion that suffering has anything at all to do with ethical decisions) but I want to be very clear that I'm not trying to pick a fight or belittle you in any way. I just find some (most, frankly) of your views baffling, heartless, and honestly, pretty terrifying. But honest discussion is the whole point of CMV, right? And, I'd like to encourage you again to cite anything to justify your assertion that plants and animals should be given exactly the same ethical consideration (none). And again, please cite anything at all to support the notion that the capacity to suffer is of no moral consequence.

Thanks! I'm looking forward to your reply. I've tried to be very clear about the points I'd like you to address, and hopefully I succeeded.

u/irishninjachick · 1 pointr/changemyview

I feel it's wrong to judge a person on what they choose to wear or not wear.

>I think many muslim women mistakenly use Islam to justify an institution that's historically a cultural thing - from when women had even less rights than they do now.

Yes, some women do so. Not all of them. Do you get upset at a girl who wears a sweater to church? Do you get upset at nuns clothing? Traditional nun clothing covers all but the face for different religious meanings. They do this for their religion, are you against them too?

I'm a feminist and I am against sexism. But it is sexist to presume that a woman wears a certain article of clothing solely because of patriarchy. It's like assuming that a woman wears a bikini solely because of patriarchy-because the female body is "sexualized" and in order to be considered "beautiful" you need to show off a "fit body". May I point out-I'm not against bikinis either and often wear them. My point is, assuming a woman wears an article of clothing because of males contributes to patriarchy even more since it is taking the freedom of expressing your body in whatever way you want.

I know some muslim females who dress this way. Some women feel it as a sign of controlling their own self-identity. Instead of showing off their body, they hide it and save it for the right person. When they have the hijabs on, the only thing another person (of both sexs) could identify them for is their eyes and their personality. One girl isn't compared to another, because there's nothing to compare. You don't become a girl who has boob boobs or a girl who has small boobs, you aren't known as a girl who has a little belly or a girl who bones stick out. Stretch marks, birthmarks, paleness, tanness, uneven body portions, ect-all can't be hold against you because no one sees it. Some girls like this. They like how they can't be objectified or sexualized by any peer.

I'm all for loving your body, but you should be able to express it anyway you want. Some girls don't want to be expressed by the appearance of their body meanwhile other girls like embracing their bodies. Wearing a hijabs is not about whether women should wear them, whether women should cover up. When it is by choice, it can involve a lot of different matters. If you are still against this, than it's like being against any woman who prefers to dress more conservatively. It's like being against any woman who doesn't choose to express her body in the way that you do. Not all hijabs-wearing women judge you by your clothing, why should you judge them?

I recommend never judging a person by their clothing. Listen to their ideals and opinions first. I can guarantee you that there is at least some women who wear hijabs who aren't like what you claim. Please don't undermine a woman's freedom of choice and self expression. The moment we start judging each other, the moment sexism wins.

Edit:I posted this in another comment, but I'll repost it here for OP too.

Tamora Pierce, a wonderful female heroine author (and my favorite author) has two short stories in her book, Tortall and Other Lands: A collection of Tales that address this issue. In Elder Brother, it shows the view that you share. In The Hidden Girl, it shows a very enlightening opposing viewpoint on why a girl might want to wear something like a hijab. This female character is not weak. She is actually a feminist rebel for her people. She prefers to wear the hijab and says it gives her power. I recommend checking out both stories.

u/weirds3xstuff · 12 pointsr/changemyview

There are two books that I have read that have done a great deal to help me understand the dynamics that allowed Europe to rise to dominance starting in the 17th century: Guns, Germs, and Steel, and Why Nations Fail. The former talks about the geographical and ecological considerations that stifled development outside of Europe. The latter talks about the role if extractive institutions, set up by colonial powers, that remained after decolonization and prevented previously-colonized nations from developing. I can't do their arguments justice here, but if you are sincerely interested in changing your view I strongly recommend reading those books. I'll try to address your specific points:

> it seems to me that those of European heritage have made the most long-lasting and significant contributions to mankind. To name a few: space travel, internet, modern technology and medicine.

All of these marvels are founded in the scientific method, which developed during the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment has been successfully exported to multiple non-European countries, most notably Japan. So, it's not just Europeans who are able to appreciate Enlightenment values. But the Enlightenment did start in Europe. So, to believe that the Enlightenment proves that Europeans are superior you must prove that the cause of the enlightenment was the innate character of Europeans, and not any contingent factors. That is...very difficult to do. And, yes, the burden of proof is on you, here, since the null hypothesis is that the biological distinctiveness of Europeans is unrelated to the start of the Enlightenment.

> I realize Arabs of ancient times also contributed a lot in the realms of mathematics and medicine.

Yes. Different civilizations have become world leaders at different points in history, which makes the idea of some kind of innate superiority of one civilization really hard to believe. It just so happens that the Islamic Golden Age occurred at a time when it was impossible to communicate over large distances, while the European Golden Age (which we are now in) occurred at a time when communication is instantaneous and we can project military power across the entire world. In other words, the global dominance of Europeans is historically contingent, not an immutable fact of biology.

>One argument I frequently hear to counter this position is that other nations have failed to develop due to colonization and exploitation.

This is an excellent argument, and is, essentially, correct.

> if they were on the same level as Europeans intellectually and strength wise, why couldn't they have found the means to fight back and turn the tables?

Although they were at the same level as Europeans "intellectually and strength wise", they were not at the same level technologically. Europe was in a golden age, Africa, India, and China were not. Again, the key here is that the European Golden Age occurred at a time when it was possible to travel the oceans and project military power worldwide. That was not the case in the Islamic Golden Age or the Indian Golden Age, which explains why those civilizations didn't conquer the world in the way the Europeans of the 19th century did.

>Instead of Europeans doing what they've done to others, why couldn't it have been the other way around?

Guns, Germs, and Steel does the best job of explaining this. In short: Europeans were blessed with livestock that could be domesticated and a consistent climate that allowed them to produce lots of food more efficiently that other regions of the world could, which allowed them to spend more time on other things, like technology. Again, the full argument is the length of a (very good) book, so I suggest you pick it up to get more details.

u/Milskidasith · 19 pointsr/changemyview

I tried to track down the "women control X% of spending" stat in another post about it, and was unable to find it. Here is an edited version of my post detailing the digging (the post I was responding to claimed 60% of spending):

>Not really. Saying "control" 60% of the wealth does not appear to have an actual source anywhere.

> First, "women control 60% of the wealth" does not have an obvious meaning; "control" is not the same as "own", and without a clear definition it is hard to know what "control" means in the context of married couples. And I dug and dug but couldn't find a primary source for that claim. A business news article discussing the 60% figure cites "Virginia Tech" as a source, but it doesn't link to a research paper; it links to a nonfunctional landing page for a "Women in Leadership and Philanthropy" council. This council does not do research and none of the links on their landing page have any citations to any research. They link out to another dead link that is intended to go to The Woman's Philanthropy Institute at Indiana University.

> This group does appear to do research, but primarily on philanthropy and charitable giving; I can find nothing that is direct research showing how "women control 60% of the wealth" is defined.

> Searching elsewhere, I find a similar-ish 50% stat that cites the BMO Wealth Institute, which links to this white paper.. This paper is a summary of various stats and achievements of women, and does mention the "controls 50% of the wealth" statistic alongside noting many of the concerns typically brought up in these discussions, like women's relatively lower income, or lack of advancement etc. The citation for women controlling 50% of the wealth is yet another dead link to the Family Wealth Advisors Council. Searching the article title, though, I found the actual link to Women of Wealth, which uses the same stat for women's control of wealth and cites Power of the Purse by Fara Warner, a book from 2005.

> Now, I don't have access to the book in full and have to rely on Amazon's preview feature, but from that preview the only mentions of women controlling wealth are in the foreward, which the statistics appear pulled from, and early in Chapter one, which predicts women will gain 85% of the wealth generated between 1995 and 2010. This statistic is said to come from Conde Nast, but is not cited; the statement before and after from different sources are. I cannot access the full set of citations for Chapter One, but nothing else in the book I can find mentions Conde Nast so it doesn't seem likely it was cited prior to page four. Further googling for Conde Nast claiming such a figure was not fruitful, although to be fair a prediction of growth between 1995 and 2010 would have been made prior to 1995 and is unlikely to show up on the internet. And it is important to note that Conde Nast is a media company, and as such their useful definition of "control wealth" would skew towards, say, who makes spending decisions in married couples even if that wealth is dependent on the other partner.

> So what's the point of all this, exactly? Well, it's to say that the 60% figure, in addition to being extremely unclear, doesn't appear to have any obvious primary source; the closest thing I can find is a 2005 book that mentions the wealth control stat and a wealth control projection without clear citation. I did find plenty of examples of people citing the BMO report, which was ultimately sourced from Power of the Purse through the forward of a more respectable sounding report.

> I suspect, but cannot ultimately confirm, that the 60% control statistic ultimately exists either due to marketing projections from the early 90s (which would explain how, with no sources earlier than 2005, it has updated from 50% control to 60% control), or that its based partially on marketing projections and partially on ????? from the foreward of Power of the Purse. This stat does not appear to have been actually confirmed independently, but it has been given more and more legitimacy as it jumped from a book to a (relatively) smaller wealth group to a major bank to being mentioned on a landing page for a university group to being represented (falsely) as research from a major university.

So what's the point of all this, then? Well, it's to point out that your article citing female spending power is also unsourced and claims even higher numbers for female spending, and falls into the same trap about not actually defining what spending power means. There's simply no good reason to believe such a huge claim without any real citations. E: Additionally, as noted in the WSJ article linked in another post, most every source or potential source for this statistic appears to originate within marketing groups trying to push marketing aimed at women. That casts some doubt on how meaningful these terms are, given it may simply be marketing groups realizing that you can't market primarily to men for household products both genders use.

u/jonathansfox · 3 pointsr/changemyview

I put very little stock in the concept of gender, but I'll use whatever pronouns a person asks me to. Let's call it the "Don't Be An Asshole Principle" -- if something is important to someone else but not to you, respect the fact that they care about it, instead of treating everyone as if they share your values.

I find myself influenced by the book "Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria?", by Beverly Daniel Tatum. It's been more than a few years since I've read it, but the message I took away was about how much youth and teenage years are about finding our place in the world, how we fit into the fabric of society. To a degree this happens throughout life, though the most intense searching happens in those transition years, where we're becoming an adult.

I personally find the entire concept of gender about as useless as you find additional genders beyond male and female. The whole social construct seems pretty specious to me. But I recognize that it's a way of processing and making sense of the world, a way of finding our place and making peace with society; the concept is intended to reconcile the social baggage that comes with being "male" and "female" by creating a separate division from anatomical sex, so that they become separate axes, permitting people to find a description that seems to fit them more easily.

But again, I find it pretty empty. In my mind, gender is sort of like defining geeks vs goths vs jocks as a central and important part of a person's self-image. It's not a "real" axis, just a description of some social conventions, and it's by no means comprehensive of all human society. To me, someone who identifies as "agender" or otherwise rejects the standard gender dichotomy is doing nothing more than just rejecting the social conventions and expectations that come with being male or being female. It's like everyone wants to call them goth, but they really don't identify with that scene at all; they don't identify with any of the standard cliques, so they carve something out that they feel comfortable with, call it emo, and then ask others to respect that to help craft the expectations and assumptions others will have about them.

So I personally identify as cisgendered male, not because I put any stock in gender as an inherently extant thing which matters outside its presence as (what I perceive to be) a completely fake social category, but because others find it useful and they want to know how to treat me. I say treat me like all the other guys. Though I wouldn't really care if the treated me like a girl or something else because I don't give a shit.

The thing is, I also respect that it does matter to some people. They don't identify with the categories presented to them, and are alienated by the gender constructs that we've created as a society, so they're finding their place by defining new categories. I get that and I practice the non-asshole principle of respecting what is important to other people.

u/quantifical · 1 pointr/changemyview

> Haha, we're gonna get in the semantic mire here. My use of the word charity (I thought) kinda implies that 'is giving people direct charitable help the best form of charity'? Is the form of charity that 'charities' enforce the best use for £100 million? And who's to say the charities I pick would be the best. I can't really squeeze that all into a pithy headline. So no! Not yet haha.

Sorry, this just sounds so dishonest. Again, how does this prove that the government are the best? Again, if you don't know what's best, why are you saying they are?

I already gave you a solution if you don't know best that doesn't require the government. Quoting myself, "If you don't know which charities to donate to, why not an index fund of charities of sorts which excludes inefficient charities? For example, charities where, for every $1 donated, less than 80 cents actually goes towards helping people. We can let people vote for causes with their money and back those causes accordingly." Vote with your money or back the market of other people's votes.

> My evidence is that nothing else has done it better to raise living standards. https://humanprogress.org/

What evidence do you have that governments raise living standards?

Governments don't raise living standards. Businesses raise living standards. Governments getting out of the way of business helps businesses raise living standards.

Ensuring fair rule of law (no corporatism, no cronyism, etc.) and property rights (the promise that what you earn or have is yours to keep) for all is the only thing government can do to get out of the way of businesses.

Please read this book when you've got time.

> Do many third world countries have efficient democracies and government? To be fair, this is the best critique, because I think the utility of my point is directly relative to the amount of corruption, and rent seeking in the society. So yeah, it does depend.

No, you misunderstand how governments work and form. They (edit: third world country governments) fail to ensure fair rule of law and property rights.

> Except these fish have tried plenty of other gold fish bowls and they're rubbish.

What does this even mean?

u/beetjuice3 · 10 pointsr/changemyview

Pretty much all historical civilizations were sexist, since women were denied fundamental rights in them based on gender. Even if one were to agree with everything else you've written, your final conclusion/suggestion does not follow. I can't think of any significant, historical civilization that might be called non-sexist.

Biology is a fact of nature; you cannot "fight biology". That would be like fighting physics. No matter what you did, the laws of physics would still apply. What you are talking about, such as "scholarships for women only, to get them into areas of technology, engineering", and "specialized programs for boys only to help them in reading & writing" do not in any way fight biology, they leave biology just as it is. However, they do change society. Scholarships are societal creations designed to redistribute access to education, which is another societal creation. Education doesn't grow on trees; human beings artificially created the system of education. Hence, the educational system is an aspect of society, not biology.

The fact that there are some gender differences in the brain, statistically speaking, should be no big surprise. But many popularized studies tend to exaggerate or misinterpret these differences. I would suggest you read Delusions of Gender by Cordelia Fine, or Brain Storm: The Flaws in the Science of Sex Differences for a deeper look at these topics. Broadly, a study that shows no differences in how men and womens' brains, on average, perceive a topic won't make a good headline or blog post, so it will be unlikely to be reported compared to one that finds a difference.

Secondly, it's not clear what these differences have to do with social roles. For example, what does the fact that men have more spatial reasoning, on average, mean for social roles exactly? Since there are many intelligent and successful women in programming and engineering fields, and many men who suck in these areas, it does not follow that there is a casual relation between gender and STEM fields. On the other hand, engineering is clearly coded as a masculine profession in society, and girls may be turned away from studying engineering for fear of being seen as unfeminine. Scholarships that seek to counteract that would then be playing a positive role.

Finally, I see an assumption through your post that what is "nature" is automatically good and must be accepted by society. However, the whole point of civilization and society is go beyond nature itself to build something for ourselves, as humans. Is medicine natural? We are programmed to die from birth, yet we still use the medical system to prolong life. Since men are physically stronger than women, should men then dominate women and impose our wishes on them? No, we created a system of laws where all citizens are equal before it because we recognize the equal moral worth of each person. Freedom is the fundamental issue. Humanity as a whole, and individual people for their own lives, must have the freedom to define its own path and create its own society without being told that a certain path is required due to unnecessary extrapolations from natural facts.

u/allinallitsjusta · 3 pointsr/changemyview

>If President Trump is ideologically Conservative, why do his positions change so frequently?

Nobody makes decisions ideologically. This is why it is seemingly so difficult to convince people to change their minds with just information. You only change people's minds by influencing them socially / appealing to morality, etc.

Trump tapped into a moral framework (like most conservatives candidates) that covers the things that people than lean conservative care about. Conservatives, even people that are super far right, or super religious, voted for Trump and sincerely trust Trump because he appeals to the things they care about. This is why many conservatives will openly say that they will never vote for a Democratic candidate -- they don't feel that Democrats care about the things they care about (and they are right)

>My understanding is that he doesn't support any ideology

He certainly leans conservative but he is generally pretty moderate and does things based on what his supporters want.

>is there an implied hierarchy in the numbering?

Nope, all 6 are equal. But Liberals literally only care about (1) and (2) while conservatives tend to care about all of them relatively equally.

If you want to read a book entirely about this:

The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion. Really fascinating read, especially in today's political climate. It humanizes the other side because right now liberals think conservatives are evil and conservatives think liberals are insane. But if you realize that they are just working with different starting materials you can understand why they value the things that they value, and why it is so difficult to change a person's mind with facts.

u/luxury_banana · 0 pointsr/changemyview

I think that's a rather simplistic understanding of it all, OP. You have the gist of it right, though.

Essentially, women have what you might call a dual sexual strategy. They need resources and protection to help them survive and raise their children they have to adulthood, and they want their children to have "good genes." Unfortunately finding a man capable of providing both is not always possible, so you get things like Simon Cowell cuckolding Andrew Silverman by impregnating his wife. for example. This is largely why you see fat ugly rich men with hot wives, because they can't get a moneyed man who looks like a male model, so many of them settle for a moneyed man and screw good looking guys on the side. Men who have money but not looks should really, really, really make sure any children a woman claims are his has are actually their own with DNA paternity tests.

I think also a lot of today's sexual marketplace phenomenon such as the male virgin trope (as seen with /r/foreveralone posters--almost exclusively male) is explained by this. This is a day and age where women don't necessarily need men. So a large percentage of men who are simply not higher end physically attractive but yet not wealthy either are left essentially involuntarily celibate because women can either support themselves or get money to subsist off the welfare state without needing to trade sex with these men for resources.

Here's a relevant quote from a book you might want to read on this subject called The Red Queen.

> There has been no genetic change since we were hunter-gatherers, but deep in the mind of modern man is a simple hunter-gatherer rule: strive to acquire power and use it to lure women who will bear heirs; strive to acquire wealth and use it to buy affairs with other men’s wives who will bear bastards . . . Wealth and power are means to women; women are means to genetic eternity.

> Likewise, deep in the mind of modern woman is the same hunter-gatherer calculator, too recently evolved to have changed much: strive to acquire a provider husband who will invest food and care in your children; strive to find a lover who can give those children first-class genes. Only if she is very lucky will they both be the same man . . . Men are to be exploited as providers of parental care, wealth and genes.

u/Shloud · 2 pointsr/changemyview

I second that this should be a teach-by-teacher decision. I'm not exactly sure what age the OP or anyone for that matter is talking about, but in my high school, cell-phone use is pretty well maintained. There is a relatively popular phone holder thing (this->

https://www.amazon.com/Numbered-Classroom-Calculator-Hanging-Organizer/dp/B01EX0IZ0Y/ref=asc_df_B01EX0IZ0Y/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=198090886690&hvpos=1o1&hvnetw=g&hvrand=7621553335386985087&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9003234&hvtargid=aud-801381245258:pla-349816256389&psc=1)

that some teachers have at the front of their classroom, but only use for certain classes. Most teachers have a mix of classes, some of which are super nerdy kids with whom the policy against cell phone usage is most easily enforced by simply calling the student out. An awkward situation is the best natural consequence against a kid who wants the teacher's respect. In other classes, students might be more rebellious, and if the phones become a problem, the teacher simply makes students put their phones in here at the start of class. Banning phones from schools just seems like an unnecessary restriction which will make kids feel like they are being micromanaged. Plus, the phone addiction issue is just as problematic if not more outside of the classroom, so eventually there has to be some good resolution for that. In the meantime, though, just let the kids do their thing, and let teachers spend 12$ on amazon (worst case scenario if the school won't pay for it) and buy one of those organizers, fixing the problem for good.

u/toodlesandpoodles · 24 pointsr/changemyview

That isn't what racism is. Racism is prejudice or discrimination rooted in a belief of superiority of one race over another. That there are differences in the world navigated by black people and the work navigated by white people that puts different standards on behavior isn't racist, it's culturally responsive.

We all navigate our personal worlds recognising that there are groups we are part of and groups that we are not,and adjust our behavior accordingly. You speak differently with your friends than with your parents, and cringe when your parents try to speak with you and your friends the way way you do, because it rings false, coming across as them play-acting at being part of your group. Parents tpyically love their kids to death, and kids love their parents, but your parents and your friends are different. And you may see your black and white friends as just your friends, but I guarantee your black friends see you as their white friend, because your life is not their life and your culture is not their culture. In the same manner, a rich kid may just have friends, one of whom is poor, but guaranteed that poor person views them as their rich friend, different from their other friends. This is part of the way in which privilege plays out. Those with it often don't recognize its role in insulating them from harsher aspects of life common to those without it.

The N-word was and is used to denigrate and dehumanize blacks by whites. The current internal use of it in black culture can be viewed as a cultural identifier that says, "Hey, we're in this together, dealing with the past and currentjust trying to live our lives while a lot of white people still don't see us as individuals, but just another, n-word." You aren't part of that culture and can't be, because society at large doesn't view you as black or treat you as such. So you don't get to play you are and then complain that people are being racist when they tell you you're acting inappropriately at best, and veering towards abetting racism.

They may tell you they don't sit in the student section because it isn't cool, but the deeper reason is that they probably don't feel comfortable. There are a lot of reasons that could exist for that. What percentage of your school's teachers are black? What percentage of the administrators are black? What percentage of your student government is black? Does your school have a dress code that specifically targets dress or hairstyles common within their communities? Being a majority isn't what matters. What matters is having a voice, having a say, and having ownership. You see it as your school, but do they, or is it just a school that they attend.

You should read, Why are all the black kids sitting together in the cafeteria: and other conversations about race.

u/PepperoniFire · 23 pointsr/changemyview

>Seems to me, if you wanted to be in good shape, there are much better ways to do it then spending months training to run an large yet arbitrary number of miles.

Most people do not run marathons simply to 'be in good shape.' That's one benefit of many but an erroneous framing of the issue. You can run to set a goal and meet it. It's not arbitrary; it has a history.

This usually starts out running a lower set of miles and working up. It's seeing tangible benefits for a constructive use of time. This is an important mental foundation of any kind of running but it often feeds into shorter-distance runners pushing themselves to a limit they've never envisioned themselves meeting. This is an emotional high that is very hard to match, though it is not exclusive to running.

Also, some people simply enjoy running. The fact that you see it as merely something to do to stay healthy is inevitably going to ignore that it is also something people can do for fun even if it's not your thing. I don't really see why people enjoy yoga even if I acknowledge some health benefits, but people who take part in yoga are also part of a community and a subset of fitness culture and also enjoy the act of taking part in it.

Building on that, there is a running community, ranging from ultra-marathon runners (if you think ~24 miles is bad, try 100+) to Hash Harriers. Individuals coming together as a group to set a goal and push each other is something from which a lot of people derive personal utility.

Finally, there's nothing that says long-distance running is ipso facto bad for you simply because it is long-distance. There is an argument to be made that much of human evolution focused in some part on the necessity of running for survival. You also need to acknowledge that some people, such as the Tarahumara, have an entire culture that revolves around long-distance running that surpasses the average marathon and colors everything ranging from education and holidays to courting and dispute revolution.

I can't really speak for nipple issues because I wear a sports bra, but needless to say it really shouldn't be enough to tip the scales from all of the above just because it doesn't fit one's neat aesthetic preference for athletic beauty.

Doing something for personal reward, community, and culture is not masochism.

EDIT: I forgot to add that marathons are super accessible. You don't even need to formally sign up for an event in order to run one. It's an egalitarian form of competition - either against yourself or others - that basically requires a shirt, shorts, shoes and fortitude. Some even view shoes as optional. Compare that to hockey, golf or football where they require investment in protective gear or pay-per-play course access at the least (at the most, a membership at a club.)

u/EwoutDVP · 1 pointr/changemyview

Well, that's asking for investment advice from some stranger on the internet, and you should obviously never take investment advice from some stranger over the internet without using your own brain.

Also, right now is a tough time anyways. As you might know the stock market jumped up (a bit at least) right after the Fed announced to keep the quantitative easing coming. This was almost "marketed" in the media as if it's a good thing, but it was almost certainly inverters "fleeing" the dollar more than anything else, as shown by the quick decline shortly after.

I guess precious metals are a pretty safe bet, or stocks in mining company's. But it will always be you vs. the market in these types of situations.

That said (and perhaps therefore) I'm a Black Swan type of guy myself. I'd rather invest in a bunch of things that might either go to the moon or crash and burn, instead of investing it all in a "certain" 3% profit a year. (Especially since there's no such thing as certainty these days.) And even then you should probably not risk more than ~20% of your net worth in Black Swans - not at the same time anyways. Probably less, even.

Right now I think Bitcoin has got to be the most promising Black Swan. It will either be worth a lot in ten years time or it will be worth nothing at all. Big risk - huge potential pay-off. I know, the word "bitcoin" brings up a lot of scepticism in a lot of people, it almost rhymes with "dotcom-bubble". But just watch the video I linked to, it's not that long.

However, whatever you do, DO NOT, invest all of your money in bitcoin, or do so at your own risk. Even 1% of your net worth should be more than enough. But most importantly, do your own research.

u/Wellstarbursts · 1 pointr/changemyview

Your opinion isn't how capitalism works.

I actually wrote a paper that touches on this topic a little bit. Here is an excerpt. I site this book throughout it.

"The book uses the example of Brad Pit being an insurance salesman rather than an actor. It explains how he is “one of a handful of people in the world who can ‘open’ a movie”(13) and how “millions of people around the world will go see a film just because Brad Pit is in it.”(13) It would therefore be a waste of his talents to sell insurance. There are many people who are able to sell insurance, but very few who can ‘open’ a movie with such high rates of success. This is why Brad Pit is paid so much money."

Similarly, (and I don't want to dismiss the hard work of many around the world but...) it is more likely that an individual will become a scientist than the next great basketball player or superstar of sorts. My point is that these people are valued more because they, in and of themselves are a very valuable commodity to many companies. In the brad pit example, a ton of companies would want him in a movie because he can basically guarantee that movie's success and make hundreds of millions of dollars.

u/protocol_7 · 2 pointsr/changemyview

The foundation of probability is measure theory, not nonstandard analysis (the topic that includes the hyperreals). So, when dealing with statements about probability, we deal with probability measures, which assign numbers in the real interval [0, 1] to subsets of the space of possible events. (Perhaps someone has studied a variant of measure theory that substitutes the hyperreals for the reals, but if so, it's sufficiently obscure that I've never heard of it.)

Also, nowhere in all this is anyone "raising a real number to the power of infinity". There are formal statements of the following sort:

>(*) The limit of 1/2^N as N approaches infinity is zero.

However, this is a statement about the limit of a sequence of real numbers, which is most definitely a real number, and is also formally defined in a way that makes no reference to "infinity". The expression "as N approaches infinity" is just a mildly informal (but much more readable) way of expressing that formal definition.

If you care to parse the formal statement, here it is:

>For any real number ε > 0, there exists a natural number N such that for all natural numbers n ≥ N, we have |1/2^(N) - 0| < ε.

This is how we precisely formalize statement (*).

For more information on limits of sequences, I recommend reading a book on mathematical analysis. Spivak's Calculus has a good chapter on this; it's an excellent book, so it's worth reading anyway.

u/JollyGreenJesus · 1 pointr/changemyview

I'm going to recommend that you read a book, not as a way of implying that 'ugh u so dum', but because it does a fantastic job of explaining away your concerns, in a way I couldn't possibly do better. The ebook is like $7, the paperback is $7, or you can get it used for even cheaper.

https://www.amazon.com/Naked-Economics-Undressing-Science-Revised/dp/0393337642

You've hit upon a quite complex topic. The gist of things though, is that when automation kills one job, it is really just freeing up that labor to fill some other niche. Let's start with a hypothetical stone-age society. Everybody gets by, on their own, but planting their own crops by hand. The grow just enough to live.

One day, someone comes by, and introduces the plow. This is a machine that automates some portion of the farming process, letting farmers create more crops with the same amount of time. Those farmers would have a surplus. The plow guy starts selling and repairing plows for the community, in exchange for some of the future surplus crops. All parties are better off.

u/Juno_-_-___ · 12 pointsr/changemyview

>putting your needs above others

Have you ever heard of the term "paradoxical intent"? It was coined by a guy named Viktor Frankl. He was a holocaust survivor and psychologist who wrote a book on how to find meaning/happiness in a world that's total shit.

The term refers to the fact that in many areas of life, the harder you focus on something, the less likely you are to achieve that end. Finishing or not prematurely finishing sex, for instance. He argues that this generally applies to the pursuit of happiness. In his own words: "it is the very pursuit of happiness that thwarts happiness." Happiness results in finding meaning/purpose in life-- not in pursuing happiness. Look no further than most celebrities. His book's a quick read if you're interested. I'm sure you'd find it in your local library, too.

So let's consider TRP in this context. These folk have taken a route almost-universally acknowledged to lead to short-term happiness but misery in the end, and they're so damn happy about their choice that they spend their time convincing strangers on the internet that they're totally happy. Longitudinal studies are clear: long-term, meaningful relationships are key to happiness in life. You're listening to a bunch of 20-somethings offer (likely fabricated) anecdotes over the advice of actual research.

Listen to evidence, not reddit

u/laraferox · 0 pointsr/changemyview

I'm not interested in getting into a debate on the internet, but if you're curious about a different perspective I highly recommend this book. The author can get a bit ranty at times, but she does an excellent job of explaining how a lot of the conclusions we draw are based on faulty logic, and she talks about a bunch of theories and studies that don't get a lot of media attention but make perfect sense to me and help explain things that otherwise seemed out of place.

u/evilfollowingmb · 6 pointsr/changemyview

I think you have a very distorted understanding of Republicans.

Republicans, broadly speaking, believe in limited government. This stems from view that the private sector usually does thing better, that we should have less government influence over our lives, a basic belief in fiscal solvency, and belief that low taxes drive prosperity for all.

None of these is "love of money". Indeed, I think there have been studies that Republicans give much more to charity than Democrats.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/03/your-money/republicans-democrats-charity-philanthropy.html

Yet further, rejecting the welfare state does NOT mean leaving the poor to starve etc. Indeed, before the modern welfare state, Americans had a rich and robust tradition of charity. The book at the link gives great detail...but in any case charity used to be much more humane and "high touch"...and more effective than the impersonal welfare machine we have now.

https://www.amazon.com/Tragedy-American-Compassion-Marvin-Olasky/dp/089526725X

I think this is where Rs and Ds have such a huge gap. Ds often can't seem to imagine that charity can happen without the government being involved. But it has and can.

u/Indubitablyz · 2 pointsr/changemyview

I am as ardent an anti-theist as you'll find, however, few points

>I am not trying to offend anyone who is religious

Not up to you, they're going to get offended anyway.

>I know religion is responsible for many of our moral values

Is it though? Morality is still an incredibly rich area of study and thought (along with consciousness.) There are many competing theories such as: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_morality

In any case- religion certainly teaches that some things are bad and other things are good. I reject the claim that it is responsible for "many of our moral values." (Reference the Old Testament- morality isn't the word I would use to describe stoning people to death for transgressions.)

>Religion is responsible for some of the worst atrocities in human history.

I would say that close-minded adherence to bad ideas are the root of the worst atrocities in human history. Religions are among the worst ideas and the most deeply held convictions people have and have contributed mightily (and have been the primary factor for a lot of the atrocities) however, people are responsible for the worst atrocities in human history.

>I don't understand how people are willing to die for something that they have been told and never actually seen.

Philosophy Psychology of` religion is pretty useful here. You may find the following concepts interesting:

  • The Backfire Effect
  • Cognitive Dissonance
  • Confirmation Bias

    It is important to note that religious adherents often grow up being taught these dogmatic systems as truth. To them it is common sense and they attribute their good feelings and positive experiences to the religion.

    >We are not born believing in religion it is taught to us.

    Someone along the way came up with the idea. Generally these days we cannot tell because not many people can get to age 18 without being subject to religious ideas. Although, I tend to agree with this hypothesis in a modern sense.

    >I believe that any religion, whethever it's monotheistic (one god) or polytheistic (many gods) that believes in a divine creator is a plague and gives evil people justification for committing awful crimes againist others (molesting children, terroist attacks, etc).

    Well, polytheistic religions have a history of being tolerant and intolerant of other gods/faiths. Monotheism has a horrific track record here.

    Jainism is non-violent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism

    >I think social philosophies like confucianism which are built on more ethical and natural principles should replace religion.

    Secular Humanism sounds like it would float your boat: https://secularhumanism.org/index.php/3260

    What people find irreplaceable about religion is its answers to big questions, comfort, and "spiritual fulfillment."

    Whether you believe in spirituality or not, there have been many hypotheses about what spiritual experience is, or where exactly it comes from. Personally, I think religions are middle men between you and whatever those experiences are. Meditation and other methods have been suggested.

    >Religion is an evil plague apon society CMV.

    Ultimately, I agree with you. Although, I do think that some people get things from religion that are good or benign (things that could be gotten from other sources IMO.) Your view just needs a bit more nuance, respectfully. The following sources would be interesting to you:

    https://www.amazon.com/Christian-Essays-Religion-Related-Subjects/dp/0671203231

    https://www.amazon.ca/End-Faith-Religion-Terror-Future/dp/0393327655

    https://www.amazon.ca/God-Not-Great-Religion-Everything/dp/0771041438
u/DigitalSuture · 1 pointr/changemyview

In my posts when i say "absolute power" i have dictatorship next to it. It is impossible for a democracy (shared power) to have absolute power. It is a oxymoron. If you are talking about a democracy that has a coup d'etat that would be different. The overthrow could temporarily have absolute power and then set in place a democracy but that is just splitting hairs. Just because there are check and balances doesn't mean that we should feel safe about it. A small group of top officials could make a secret Oligarchy; the idea is plausible. Another example would be using political power to pressure constituents.

When a president goes with the majority, he is using absolute power because there is no enough opposition to the contrary of that ruling; the morality of the majority is a different question all together. Such as like over in Africa right now. The idea of a majority ruling with values you don't agree with that can persecute you is what some would fear. Those that might trade their freedom for perceived security can lead to the erosion of actual rights; even though on the door it says your all free. Does anybody remember how our own history has been in regards to the minority? Before i catch hell, i love my country and wouldn't want to be anywhere else... i just am not going to try and excuse horrible actions?

Does anyone remember when we gave smallpox blankets to the indians? Gave them land and kicked them off after we found valuable natural resources, and then relocated them to somewhere else all the while stripping their culture/identity/beliefs away and converting them? Women didn't have a right to vote til the early 1900's? and African Americans? What about a African American woman? We could go on with Civil rights, Gay rights, the internment camps after Pearl Harbor for Asian looking people, or those who were Muslim and jailed for looking Muslim after 9/11? Electrolytes, because that is what the majority craves.

Martial Law has been some concerns since it can suspend rights which opens the possibility (however unlikely) of a process to absolute power (and eventually a country not of the people). [Here is a thread that would be more knowledgeable than me.]http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1cv0d4/has_martial_law_ever_been_declared_in_the_us_and/)
Turkey right now has a whole set of issues related to how the majority wants their government and how those in power would like to have it.

The abusive power doesn't have to always be negative; there are plenty of politicians that use their power to cut through the politics to help others. They are still abusing their position; even though it helps others (e.g., build roads, create jobs, individual rights). People who are sociopaths/psychopaths/narcissists believe they are doing something 'good'; they truly believe it in their minds; also those types of high profile jobs are attractive for those types of personalities which allows the abuse of power.

What about Nigeria? Kenya has elected governors and i have heard you can't get anything done efficiently through customs without the need to bribe everyone.

[I wasn't talking of "something"... i stated very specifically the condition: that someone (a human being that has a known disposition in surviving within their environment) will abuse (take advantage) of their power (serves the self interest of that person and possibly others as long as it satisfies the first condition) I did not state that 'if' i throw this ball in the air it will 'always' come down. Since that deals with external factors such as gravity/location/attached to something etc... Human behavior is more predictable and has been modeled over enough to show it is inevitable that people will maximize the outcomes of their situation. Before you try the altruism route, let me say that altruists feel rewarded by helping others; it is self serving dopamine response even if it serves others. Mother Teresa is a bad example (before anyone brings it up).

Ask yourself how many languages are on this earth. How many religions/gods? How big is earth compared to the entire universe? Armed with this knowledge is it possible that this outcome has happened before in over 200,000 years of Homo Sapiens being around each other? Maybe their groups were small democracies? Now compare 200,000 years of which 2500 years is a little over 1 percent (Greek democracy 500 b.c.?)... So can it happen over the next 200,000 years if we are still around? What is the basis of this never happening? Is it because you believe it will never happen? Are you just looking for 1 example in 200,000 years of history to change your mind to it having possibly happened or a arbitrary length of time extended in the future? Is the condition that you are talking only of "our" democracy (United States) or of the system of Democracy? How do we know as outside the 'system' whether a charade is being played in front of us or not? How would we be able to tell that someone is ruling with absolute power in a democracy? I am not talking paranoia, just bringing up questions to give personal reflection on the issue.

A good read "The Black Swan" by Nassim Taleb. This topic really doesn't apply, but the fundamental thought is applicable.

Read or download the audiobook of Malcom Gladwell's book "The Tipping Point"; his other books are awesome also... I can't recommend him highly enough.

Why societies collapse: Ted Talks with Jared Diamond

Please read this before replying about any human behavioral matters The (Honest) Truth About Dishonesty: How We Lie to Everyone---Especially Ourselves by Dan Ariely

tl;dr "No one is saying that you've broken any laws, Mr. President... We're just saying it's a little weird that you didn't have to." -- John Oliver on PRISM


u/namae_nanka · 2 pointsr/changemyview

>The general consensus seems to be that growing up without a positive male role model will cause some kind of psychological or behavioral problems somewhere down the line.

Studies point to fatherless boys doing especially worse in school. Men from lower strata of society which is disproportinately fatherless are also more likely to not attend higher education compared to their sisters. It doesn't seem to be that far down the line.

>I also just don't feel that there's anything that a father can bring to the table that a mother can't.

That would be a wrong feeling.

>Maccoby sets out to explain the great mystery of gender development: the virtually universal existence of gender segregation among children, which remains impervious to the best efforts of egalitarian-minded parents and teachers. Boys and girls will play together if adults require them to, although it's often "side-by-side" play, in which each does his or her own thing, but given their druthers, children self-segregate.

www.amazon.com/Two-Sexes-Growing-Coming-Together/dp/0674914821/ref=la_B001H9TT6Y_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1369604483&sr=1-2

Children, especially boys develop the concept of the self sex and other sex at an early age. So that playing with mother vs. playing with father would not be the same thing. Children tend to seek a sexual identity and keep on the lookout for sexual differences, the behavior being termed akin to being gender detectives.
And some thoughts on Sweden's radical gender-equality in the light of the above quote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rF0_pvPsMaA

>This idea strikes me as sexist,

while it's easy for someone to comprehend that once they're adults, children don't have the same agency. We recognize many aspects of childhood that seem irrational in adulthood and even encourage in certain respects.

u/BeetleB · 1 pointr/changemyview

>f 2/3 of the public was never willing to change their view, how do you explain major shifts in public opinion over time?

The OP is talking about changing views based on facts and evidence.

As someone who has spent his whole life trying to change people's views based on objective fact and evidence, I tend to side with OP. It can work, but it is rare (although not as rare as 1%).

Many had recommended I read Influence by Cialdini. So I did. I now recommend it to everyone.

People will mostly change their views if it comes from someone who has influence over them. When said influential person presents the facts, they are more likely to change their views. But if a random person, or someone who is somehow different[1] presents the same facts, it has little effect. They don't change their views primarily because of the facts, but because of the person presenting the facts.

[1] What constitutes "different" will vary from person to person. It could be race/gender/sexual orientation/nationality/job/etc. It could be more complex: A tech geek is more likely to listen to another tech geek. Ever had/witnessed a conversation where someone says "I know what X is saying sounds crazy, but he's not (e.g. senior corporate manager), he is one of us. I think we should at least consider what he is saying". People are skeptical of the outgroup, but if someone in their ingroup says it, they are more likely to listen.

Also just read The Righteous Mind. Also highly recommend it. Too much in there to summarize, but he points out that if you want to change someone's mind, you'll have much more luck by applying Dale Carnegie's techniques than presenting facts and evidence. Be kind to people. Compliment them. Butter them up with gifts, etc. And so on.

Both are books by academics who study their subjects. Not some random bloke on Reddit.

u/ThatSpencerGuy · 2 pointsr/changemyview

The internet is a very good place to go for people who are very worried about what other people believe. It's not so good at changing anyone's behavior, since you can't observe others' behavior through a computer. But you sure can tell people they are wrong and demand that they agree.

That means that the vegans you're encountering online aren't representative of all vegans. They're just the vegans who are very worried about what they and other people believe. By definition, that's not going to be a very humble subset of vegans.

Most vegans change other people's minds far away from the internet. They do it by simply purchasing, preparing, and eating vegan food, and when asked why they eat that way, explaining their position simply and without judgement.

> I also can't mention to anyone I know that I'm eating vegan because of the obvious social consequences.

I don't know if that's true. I don't think many people experience social consequences for their diet alone. Here's what I do if I don't want to talk about my reasons for being vegetarian, but someone asks me. I say, "Oh, you know--the usual reasons." If they press, I say, "Animal rights, environmental impact, that kind of thing." And I always go out of my way to explain that I "just ate less meat" for a while before becoming a full vegetarian. And also make sure I compliment others' omnivorous meals so people know I'm not judging anything as personal as their diet.

There's a wonderful book called Eating Animals whose author, I think, takes a very reasonable and humble approach to the ethics of eating meat.

u/lifeishowitis · 1 pointr/changemyview

Check out Ann Transon, and other documented female 100mi. runners. While men have outperformed her, she did hold the record for a time and even now her record is only beat by about a minute, which is negligible over the course of 100 miles. While men will tend to outperform even in these cases, the time differences are multiples smaller than they are in sprinting and marathons.

Some of the theory behind why can be found here. He wrote a book on it called Born to Run if you're interested in looking into the original source materials or criticisms against his methodology. I have the book on order, but I find the theory behind why this might be the case pretty compelling.

*edit: let me go ahead and caveat that by saying while a minute is anything but negligible for athletic purposes, it's more than sufficient to make my point about men and women hunting or at least traveling for the hunt together. While many results are less fantastic, it seems that it's not uncommon for the long distance men and women to be only a few minutes apart.

u/DonkeyOatie · 1 pointr/changemyview

I read the article; thank you for providing it.

There is a huge gap in our assumptions (a la Haidt) and I don't think it would be fruitful to continue. I appreciate your good faith interaction.

u/r3m0t · 0 pointsr/changemyview

> men continued to out-earn their female counterparts, by about 7%, even when graduating from the same school, choosing the same major and working in the same occupation. Source

1/1.07 = 93%.

> Where do women in universities get less pasty for the same qualifications/job title? I am honestly asking, never seen this before - I would be interested to find out.

It was a hypothetical based on information like this, however you might find the data on this page or on Google.

There was more I could have clipped, but I felt bad taking the whole chapter. Maybe you should buy the book if you want to find out more. :)

> But these things are sort of slow reaching changes that stem from social attitudes that evolve over time.

I agree, and I think that we aren't even near halfway to equality in terms of how much time it will take, even though many great strides were made in the last century. Part of the reason is people assuming that the problem is already solved because they haven't looked very closely. That's why I'm so active in this thread. :)

u/Madplato · 28 pointsr/changemyview

Well, yes? There's 12 points, each of which is used twice in a day. The watch is a support for the system, not the other way around. The watch is the same in both places, despite the whole country running on 24 hour time. It just looks like this.

u/journeytointellect · 4 pointsr/changemyview

I don't know if you are a reader, but this book has really interesting perspectives.

(FYI I'm not trying to make an argument that "he had it worse so you have nothing to complain about. I just find that he had an interesting perspective on life.)

In the particular part I'm talking about, he talks about how each person is unique in who they are and what they have to offer to the world and what they are able to do. He gives the opinion that if you aren't there to do what you have the talent to do and what you could do for the world, nobody else will be able to do it the way you could. In that way, you are unique and irreplaceable.

I think he does a better job of explaining it than I do and I would really suggest reading it. I mean if you are thinking of suicide, I would generally say don't do it. Obviously I can't stop you but I would ask you to read that book first. I think it has a very powerful message.

u/SurprisedPotato · 6 pointsr/changemyview

> highschool-university girls/boys

You observe these people not matching up, and propose a theory. Other commenters have pointed out problems with your theory (if makeup didn't work, people wouldn't use it).

Here's another theory that fits the facts, and also explains why people use make-up.

  • people are highly selective about who they match up with, and instinctively know that in HS/Uni, there's really no urgency.
  • people don't really know 100% if they are a 5 or 7 or 9. Even if they do, it makes sense for a 5 to aim for a 9 when there's still time to be choosy. They might get lucky, but if not, it's no great loss, there's still time. Artificially bumping their number with make-up or clothing or regular gym visits increases their odds of getting lucky.
  • Partly, in HS/uni, people aren't actually trying to find their match, their are practicing the social queues that they'll need when they do try.
  • It's only when the pool starts to deplete as people actually get engaged and married that people start to settle for matches at their "actual" numbers.
  • most importantly all this is subconscious, people play these strategic dating & mating games without really being aware of what they're doing.

    Here's a book I'd recommend that sheds some light on this whole topic.
u/Zippy0723 · 9 pointsr/changemyview

As /u/Madplato pointed out above, the "hour hand rotating once per day" issue can be solved by just making clocks like this

As for the changing the way we talk about time, to me that seems kind of outside the point of this discussion? I'm more arguing that 24 hour time is better, not that it's worth the effort for counties that use 12 hour time to actually undergo the change.

u/auryn0151 · 2 pointsr/changemyview

Can I recommend a book?

Yes, I think we'd see something vastly different if not for Christianity.

u/JordanTheBrobot · 2 pointsr/changemyview

Fixed your link

I hope I didn't jump the gun, but you got your link syntax backward! Don't worry bro, I fixed it, have an upvote!

u/bguy74 · 3 pointsr/changemyview

The accessible version is covered by the book by Haidt (who I thinks is also an author of the study I'm about to try to go find).

And...here it is: http://faculty.virginia.edu/haidtlab/articles/manuscripts/graham.nosek.submitted.moral-stereotypes-of-libs-and-cons.pub601.pdf



u/edwardlleandre · 2 pointsr/changemyview

The actual 'study' is a BMO fluffpiece that starts by talking about the history of superheroes. It links to this as its source, which in turn finally links us to the source of the statistic that the first two were misusing, which comes from this book. The book does not cite its sources, and just looking at the data I can see in the 'look inside' section, it seems like the author is cherry picking stats to try and make women feel empowered. This is fine, just not very scientific.

But, what we can do is look at her claims.

In the foreword of the book (presumably written by someone else, though I can't find who), the author makes a claim that women in the US control half of all private wealth at $14 trillion. A cursory google check shows that in 2005, when the book was written, private wealth in the US was about $60 trillion. Now I'm not a mathematician by any means, but I do believe that is closer to a quarter, not half.

In the first chapter, the author claims the number is $13 trillion, jumping to $20 trillion in the next 15 years. Given that we passed $93 trillion in 2016, $20 trillion by 2020 is sure as hell not going to be 'half'.

The short version of what I'm saying, I guess, is that you need to stop believing everything you read on the internet without actually checking your sources. Especially when the claim is fairly ridiculous on its face.

u/Shaneydev · 3 pointsr/changemyview

What do you mean by politically disingenuous?

Associating political beliefs with the values of individuals is the primary research focus of Jonathan Haidt, one of the world's leading social psychologists. He wrote The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion which goes into deep detail about how a person's underlying psychology and subsequent value system (as well as a certain amount of environmental upbringing) form their political beliefs. So a lazy association? No.

The same guy, Jonathan Haidt, himself a liberal professor at NYU, is one half of the pair who wrote the most widely cited non-academic piece on Victimhood Culture, bringing it from academia and into the mainstream media with this article, called "The Coddling of the American Mind", which he further expanded upon in his own website here.

Though Professor Haidt says people on either side of the right/left spectrum can be prone to getting 'sucked into' victimhood culture, he says that "the narrative of oppression and victimization is especially congenial to the leftist worldview (Haidt 2012:296; Kling 2013; Smith 2003:82)".

But I want you to explain what is "politically disingenuous" about my above comment.