0
listlengths 4
4
| 1
listlengths 10
314
| 2
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|
[
{
"author": "ImpossibleSquish",
"body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
"date": "2023-11-10",
"id": "17shckw",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/"
},
{
"author": "IggZorrn",
"body": "I will call your argument Schrödinger's Santa.\n\nWhen I was 5, I thought that Santa existed. Today I know he doesn't. My beliefs about him were 100% wrong when I was 5. By your logic, this would mean that my believes about him today are wrong, too. This results in Santa being real and not real at the same time.\n\nWhy is that? Your first paragraph and the whole logic you apply in it are based on the assumption that there are things that we do know for certain today. Otherwise, you could not declare all believes of the past to be wrong. This directly contradicts the claim that you are trying to deduce from it, creating a logical fallacy.\n\nHere are your statements in paragraph 1:\n\n1. People were wrong in the past. \n2. We know this, because knowledge is better today.\n\nSince you need 2. to be true for you to be able to say 1., you can not make 1. the basis for \"all believes of today are equally wrong as those in the past\".",
"date": "2023-11-10",
"id": "k8qead4",
"parent_id": "17shckw",
"score": 32,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "ImpossibleSquish",
"body": ">Since you need 2. to be true for you to be able to say 1., you can not make 1. the basis for \"all believes of today are equally wrong as those in the past\".\n\nVery good point! !delta",
"date": "2023-11-10",
"id": "k8qgyvb",
"parent_id": "k8qead4",
"score": 7,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "DeltaBot",
"body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/IggZorrn ([3∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/IggZorrn)).\n\n^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
"date": "2023-11-10",
"id": "k8qh1i0",
"parent_id": "k8qgyvb",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
]
| [
[
{
"author": "ImpossibleSquish",
"body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
"date": "2023-11-10",
"id": "17shckw",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/"
},
{
"author": "coral_Hausa",
"body": "on the bright side, we've got 9 / 11 wrong!",
"date": "2023-11-10",
"id": "k8qb1r2",
"parent_id": "17shckw",
"score": 5,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "ImpossibleSquish",
"body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
"date": "2023-11-10",
"id": "17shckw",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/"
},
{
"author": "robtharedmd",
"body": "A lot of what they said was in fact correct. \n\n“The earliest documented mention of the concept dates from around the 5th century BC, when it appears in the writings of Greek philosophers. In the 3rd century BC, Hellenistic astronomy established the roughly spherical shape of Earth as a physical fact and calculated the Earth's circumference.”\n\nhttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth#:~:text=The%20earliest%20documented%20mention%20of,and%20calculated%20the%20Earth's%20circumference.\n\nEven modern religions date back several thousand years.",
"date": "2023-11-10",
"id": "k8qcbbv",
"parent_id": "17shckw",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "ImpossibleSquish",
"body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
"date": "2023-11-10",
"id": "17shckw",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/"
},
{
"author": "toxicroach1",
"body": "Yeah, bud. That's how science works and that's what's awesome about it. You approach truth, you never quite get there.\n\nBut, I think it's fair to say the people who can build iPhones, genetically engineer stuff, and send people to the moon probably have a better grip on physical reality than Plato did.",
"date": "2023-11-10",
"id": "k8qcbpn",
"parent_id": "17shckw",
"score": 4,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "ImpossibleSquish",
"body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
"date": "2023-11-10",
"id": "17shckw",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/"
},
{
"author": "Hellioning",
"body": "You're aware we've known the earth was round for most of human history, right? We even got pretty close as to how large it is.\n\nYes, we are certainly wrong about some things. But not everything. Just like someone in the past knew the earth was roundish and knew approximately how large it was, we know that the earth is an oblate spheroid and are pretty confident as to how large it is. It's not that we're wrong, it's that we're inexact.",
"date": "2023-11-10",
"id": "k8qdta7",
"parent_id": "17shckw",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "goodknight94",
"body": "Human history is over 200000 years. We didn’t know it was round",
"date": "2023-11-10",
"id": "k8qh2iy",
"parent_id": "k8qdta7",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "ImpossibleSquish",
"body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
"date": "2023-11-10",
"id": "17shckw",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/"
},
{
"author": "Its_A_Samsquatch",
"body": "Let me give you an example- I believe, like the vast majority of people, that the earth revolves around the sun. If you go back, say, 100 years, there would be a much higher percentage of people on earth who believe something different. \n\nBy that logic I would say, broadly speaking, a \"modern belief\" is more likely to be correct than an ancient one. \n\nAny modern belief that differs from the norm is *probably* going to have to compete against the already existing scientific knowledge that most beliefs are based on.",
"date": "2023-11-10",
"id": "k8qdwqj",
"parent_id": "17shckw",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "ImpossibleSquish",
"body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
"date": "2023-11-10",
"id": "17shckw",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/"
},
{
"author": "AidosKynee",
"body": "Are you familiar with Isaac Aasimov's essay [The Relativity of Wrong](https://hermiene.net/essays-trans/relativity_of_wrong.html)?\n\n> This particular thesis was addressed to me a quarter of a century ago by John Campbell, who specialized in irritating me. He also told me that all theories are proven wrong in time.\n\n> My answer to him was, \"John, when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.\"",
"date": "2023-11-10",
"id": "k8qeeu7",
"parent_id": "17shckw",
"score": 4,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "ImpossibleSquish",
"body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
"date": "2023-11-10",
"id": "17shckw",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/"
},
{
"author": "thetransportedman",
"body": "You’re forgetting the “crazy things people believed” were created by spoken word and theory. Today’s science is created by the scientific method to reject null hypotheses instead of just fabricating",
"date": "2023-11-10",
"id": "k8qey2a",
"parent_id": "17shckw",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Noodlesh89",
"body": "Doesn't today's science also begin with theory and spoken?",
"date": "2023-11-11",
"id": "k8qxpo4",
"parent_id": "k8qey2a",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "ImpossibleSquish",
"body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
"date": "2023-11-10",
"id": "17shckw",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/"
},
{
"author": "obert-wan-kenobert",
"body": "The only thing I’d argue is that as time goes on, our tools for observation and discovery have vastly improved.\n\nFor example, thousands of years ago, we had to use abstract mathematical theories to “prove” that the earth was round. Now we can build a spaceship and literally see it ourselves.\n\nSame goes for space telescopes, microscopes, technology that can read different waves and frequencies, etc.\n\nI’m sure we still have a bunch of stuff that’s wrong or undiscovered, but there’s a lot less abstract theorizing than there was thousands of years ago, because we have the technology to actually observe things with our own two eyes.",
"date": "2023-11-10",
"id": "k8qfjbs",
"parent_id": "17shckw",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "ImpossibleSquish",
"body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
"date": "2023-11-10",
"id": "17shckw",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/"
},
{
"author": "Wolfgang-Warner",
"body": "Existential crises are statistically unlikely to be right.\n\nMust you be *all knowing* to feel ok? If not, the precise % of knowledge you have is no big deal, and if some % of what you think you know is wrong, it's no big deal.\n\nIt's far more fun to embrace the \"surprise me\" nature of unfolding reality. Would you want it any other way?",
"date": "2023-11-10",
"id": "k8qgv2r",
"parent_id": "17shckw",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "ImpossibleSquish",
"body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
"date": "2023-11-10",
"id": "17shckw",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/"
},
{
"author": "goodknight94",
"body": "Yeah science is never quite “right”. Isaac Newton “proved” the conservation of mass. Until Einstein showed mass could be converted into energy. But for most practical purposes, you can assume conservation of mass and it is extremely useful in engineering. We may someday find a more fundamental truth than Einsteins e=mc2. Almost every scientific idea requires some assumptions.\n\nThe idea that we will ever find the fundamental truths of the universe is far fetched. But science still provides a lot of tools and is worthwhile to keep pursuing. \n\nMath in the other hand does have real proofs and it’s not subject to new observations in nature. Many mathematics have remained unchanged for thousands of years.2+2 will always equal 4",
"date": "2023-11-10",
"id": "k8qiy69",
"parent_id": "17shckw",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "astar58",
"body": "When I was in the third grade someone pointed out me that 1+1=10. I think the current truth may be closer to {}+{}={{}}\n\nLately we have fun saying 10=π\n\nDifferent bases and we now like to use irrational bases for fun. But some of our oldest math uses base 60. And now you know why there are 60 seconds in a minute.\n\nI personally see the 2+2 argument in creepy letters to the editor. Sort of the idea the arabs were smarter than us I guess. /s",
"date": "2023-11-12",
"id": "k8wbwzl",
"parent_id": "k8qiy69",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "ImpossibleSquish",
"body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
"date": "2023-11-10",
"id": "17shckw",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/"
},
{
"author": "Individual_Hunt_4710",
"body": "I think this might be a logical fallacy. Humans started out being correct about very few things. Over time, we generally got more and more correct. most things deemed \"correct\" that should be considered \"incorrect\" are already considered incorrect. We might be wrong about certain things, like the nature of consciousness or quantum mechanics, but we have most things figured out.",
"date": "2023-11-10",
"id": "k8qj3tb",
"parent_id": "17shckw",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Noodlesh89",
"body": "I'm not sure we can say that. Knowing how much we know is correct or incorrect would first require omnipotence, otherwise we only think we know what is correct or incorrect, just as people would have eons ago.",
"date": "2023-11-11",
"id": "k8qy6ci",
"parent_id": "k8qj3tb",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "ImpossibleSquish",
"body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
"date": "2023-11-10",
"id": "17shckw",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/"
},
{
"author": "HistoryDave-22",
"body": "First off, there are degrees of wrong, and we may be wrong on small details rather than big picture. Others have already pointed this out.\n\nSecond, I think modern theories are less likely to be wrong because we have better ability to collect and analyze information to support theories today.\n\nAs a very simplistic example of this, consider the beginning of the Bible (admittedly, this is more mythology than science, but let me explain). That seven-day creation story, amongst other things, is an attempt to explain why the sky is blue and it rains. It explains that God created the atmosphere to separate the \"waters below\" (the ocean) from the \"waters above.\"\n\nI think this is ingenious, frankly (though also totally wrong). It explains why the sky is blue -- we're looking up at the underside of a big ocean in the sky. It explains why it rains -- sometimes that big ocean in the sky springs a leak.\n\nWe've been to space, now. We're not going to be wrong about the existence of outer space in the way that the ancient Hebrews were wrong about the existence of the giant ocean in the sky, because they took their best guess about something they'd never traveled to.",
"date": "2023-11-10",
"id": "k8qlvlg",
"parent_id": "17shckw",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "ImpossibleSquish",
"body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
"date": "2023-11-10",
"id": "17shckw",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/"
},
{
"author": "fox-mcleod",
"body": "I think why you’re stressing about it is that you haven’t heard of “wronger than wrong”. \n\nNot all wrong ideas are equal. There is such a thing as *more* wrong and *less* wrong. Todays ideas are less wrong than yesterdays. That’s how science works. It identifies the wrongest theories and eliminates them. \n\nHere’s an example of how ideas can be wronger than other wrong ideas. If I asked you how many lobsters there are in the world right now, would you know?\n\nAnd yet, if I showed you four guesses, could you rank them in terms of wrongness?\n\n1. 345,736,341\n1. 1,220\n1. 0\n1. -6",
"date": "2023-11-10",
"id": "k8qlx0m",
"parent_id": "17shckw",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "astar58",
"body": "Nice",
"date": "2023-11-12",
"id": "k8wcsc3",
"parent_id": "k8qlx0m",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "ImpossibleSquish",
"body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
"date": "2023-11-10",
"id": "17shckw",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/"
},
{
"author": "Advanced_Piano1062",
"body": "I think about this all the time and point it out to people and they don’t get me!\n\nI work in medicine, and people are often dogmatic about doing the newest thing that was just proven in x or y study on the principle that it is “evidence-based.” I like to point out that 100 years ago, the evidence was that highly disfiguring radical mastectomies were the only way to cure breast cancer and smoking wasn’t harmful. Which isn’t to say those things were wrong for their time, merely that we should be humble about how our current behavior will look from the perspective of 100 years from now. \n\nI don’t think it’s depressing - I think it’s cool to consider how far we’ve come and also be humble about how much further we have to go. You can think or do what’s best based on what you know today and still be open to learning that there is a better way to think or act that will be discovered.",
"date": "2023-11-10",
"id": "k8qmjoe",
"parent_id": "17shckw",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "ImpossibleSquish",
"body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
"date": "2023-11-10",
"id": "17shckw",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/"
},
{
"author": "Beginning-Listen1397",
"body": "There are plenty of common ideas that are objectively wrong or factually wrong but politically correct. Years from now people will look back on us and be puzzled that we could believe so many obviously untrue things.",
"date": "2023-11-10",
"id": "k8qnk6k",
"parent_id": "17shckw",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "ImpossibleSquish",
"body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
"date": "2023-11-10",
"id": "17shckw",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/"
},
{
"author": "Beginning-Listen1397",
"body": "Scientists astronomers and educated people have known the earth is round since 400BC if not earlier. They even calculated the diameter, accurately to within a few miles.\n\nThere was one church father around 300 or 400AD who thought this was ridiculous, the people on the other side of the earth would fall off.",
"date": "2023-11-10",
"id": "k8qo2jt",
"parent_id": "17shckw",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "ImpossibleSquish",
"body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
"date": "2023-11-10",
"id": "17shckw",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/"
},
{
"author": "brianlefevre87",
"body": "There's a lot of correct knowledge in tradition e.g. fasting can be beneficial. \n\nBut if you can't determine what parts of the knowledge are correct and which are wrong, you end up following a bunch of wrong ideas as well. \n\nA radar is useless if it's full of false returns. Militaries jam them to render them useless like this. And believing superstition works in a similar way. Blinding you from what's real with chaff. \n\nWhich leaves it as useful as a broken clock, still right twice a day.",
"date": "2023-11-10",
"id": "k8qofgm",
"parent_id": "17shckw",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "ImpossibleSquish",
"body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
"date": "2023-11-10",
"id": "17shckw",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/"
},
{
"author": "AnHonestApe",
"body": "Epistemology, logic, critical thinking, etc. has come a long way, even within the past 100 years. The ubiquity of the peer review process, for instance, is very new. \n\nThe correspondence principle is more at play than ever before. New ideas in science and academia rarely completely nullify or overturn claims that have scientific or academic consensus. More so, the claim becomes more specific, unlike times in the past. The chances are greater than ever that beliefs based on scientific or expert consensus are at least partly correct, though sure, we know that even the best ideas are not complete, but it doesn’t mean they aren’t right. \n\nThe utility of the Delphi method and other methods using expert consensus is also some strong evidence that ideas with expert consensus are at least in part accurate.",
"date": "2023-11-10",
"id": "k8qpwjg",
"parent_id": "17shckw",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "ImpossibleSquish",
"body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
"date": "2023-11-10",
"id": "17shckw",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/"
},
{
"author": "MassiveScarcity5337",
"body": "Well what do you want me to do about that",
"date": "2023-11-10",
"id": "k8qq014",
"parent_id": "17shckw",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "ImpossibleSquish",
"body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
"date": "2023-11-10",
"id": "17shckw",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/"
},
{
"author": "Love-Is-Selfish",
"body": "This seems to be assuming that modern methods of knowledge and ancient methods of knowledge are equal, that man hasn’t learned better methodologies since then. \n\nAlso, knowledge builds upon knowledge. Newton needed to know that the moon goes around the Earth before he could discover the law of gravitation. So it’s not that ancient people were biologically less intelligent, but that they didn’t have as much knowledge to work with. \n\nAlso, there are many ancient beliefs that are in fact right. Like, the Pythagorean theorem. Or the Roman’s discovered how to make good concrete and structures that still exist today. Modern concrete is supposed to be stronger, but that doesn’t mean their concrete was awful. \n\n>So whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong.\n\nHave you applied to this to your own modern belief that modern beliefs are probably wrong? \n\nBut the fact that someone else’s belief was probably wrong doesn’t mean your belief was probably wrong. Or the fact that someone else’s beliefs is probably true doesn’t mean your belief is probably true. The only way you know a belief is probably true or not is from the evidence for the belief itself. You need some justification to apply the probability from one group to a different group. Why does the fact that people were so wrong about many things in the past mean that modern beliefs are probably wrong? Are you like assuming that people are inherently probably wrong about their beliefs or something?",
"date": "2023-11-10",
"id": "k8qr124",
"parent_id": "17shckw",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "ImpossibleSquish",
"body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
"date": "2023-11-10",
"id": "17shckw",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/"
},
{
"author": "SoWokeIdontSleep",
"body": "I think that more or less applies to cultural beliefs, rather than scientific or mathematical ones like most people have said here.\n So it's likely that as far as scientific knowledge some things might stay the same, maybe we might have a better theory of gravity or dark matter or quantum mechanics that are more complete, but like Newtonian gravity, the basics will still be pretty useful.\n Morally and culturally I do wonder what things we do nowadays that might seem abhorrent in the future. Will we someday have perfect lab grown steaks without animals and therefore make our eating animals seem barbaric? I mean clearly this whole war against trans people is gonna seem future generations as backwards as the people who denied women the right to vote and black people personhood in the States.\n More to the point, how will we be the backwards boomers once we reach that age?",
"date": "2023-11-10",
"id": "k8qv0uo",
"parent_id": "17shckw",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "ImpossibleSquish",
"body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
"date": "2023-11-10",
"id": "17shckw",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/"
},
{
"author": "Noodlesh89",
"body": "Regarding beliefs, many beliefs have been thrown out, but others have withstood the test of time.",
"date": "2023-11-11",
"id": "k8qycgo",
"parent_id": "17shckw",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "ImpossibleSquish",
"body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
"date": "2023-11-10",
"id": "17shckw",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/"
},
{
"author": "chillychili",
"body": "Some things may be more right at one period of time than another. Moore’s law (which is really more a law about cost, not technological development) is incredibly correct right now, but probably won’t be in the future. \n\nWhat’s correct may also be a matter of available information/context. We know the wider context of the past, but the people of that past knew the details of the immediate context that did not persist into the future. Hindsight is not always 20/20. Let’s say that someone gets into a car accident on the highway today. Someone a hundred years into the future looks at a Google Map snapshot of that day and concludes that if that person took a different exit that day they might have been okay. What the future person might not know is that there was major construction on that exit ramp that day because no one bothered to archive construction jobs. The person today thus took the “correct” route that wouldn’t fling them into a dangerous construction site.\n\nI’m not arguing against your core stance, but I think there are kinds of beliefs that don’t quite fit cleanly into your model.",
"date": "2023-11-11",
"id": "k8qyyad",
"parent_id": "17shckw",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "ImpossibleSquish",
"body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
"date": "2023-11-10",
"id": "17shckw",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/"
},
{
"author": "Desperate_Climate677",
"body": "I think the important thing to remember is akin to life being a journey not a destination. These proto-discoveries led to the ones we have today, and they will pave the way for another one. \n\nIt’s not as if we were 100% wrong every time; it’s more like we created a model of the universe and there were little holes in the theory we all ignored, until someone came around (Euclid, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Einstein…) each will expose an important hole in our current understanding of things, and it will usher in an updated theory. \n\nAnd if we were to be right about everything and know all there is to know, what would be the damn point of life at all? It’s struggle and growth that gives life meaning, and that means there isnt an end of history, it'll keep going and things will probably get even crazier over time",
"date": "2023-11-11",
"id": "k8qz11u",
"parent_id": "17shckw",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "ImpossibleSquish",
"body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
"date": "2023-11-10",
"id": "17shckw",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/"
},
{
"author": "sciencesebi3",
"body": "What? Eratosthenes calculated Earth's circumference to a reasonable precision almost two millennia ago. Pythagora's theorem still works. Al-Jahiz wrote about a rudimentary theory of evolution, way before Darwin.\n\nYou're dead wrong about science. The bleeding edge is constantly fine tuned, but basic ideas rarely change.\n\n\nFurthermore, even if you look at more abstract ideas like roman gods. What's the name of the biggest gas giant in our solar system? Jupiter. Even though we don't worship it, the simple association with such a large planet still shows parallels in awe of that name.\n\n\nIt's a fallacy to assume \"science is always changing and wrong\". A lot of this is due to improper publication and bias. A lot of studies are dogshit and published with 0 peer review. It's way harder to disprove something than to prove, because you have to track down the data and conditions, then perfectly replicate that several times.",
"date": "2023-11-11",
"id": "k8r6kht",
"parent_id": "17shckw",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "ImpossibleSquish",
"body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
"date": "2023-11-10",
"id": "17shckw",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/"
},
{
"author": "Large_Pool_7013",
"body": "It's safe to assume we must be wrong about some things, both individually and as a society, because what are the odds that we're not?",
"date": "2023-11-11",
"id": "k8r8h2p",
"parent_id": "17shckw",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "ImpossibleSquish",
"body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
"date": "2023-11-10",
"id": "17shckw",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/"
},
{
"author": "Curious_Working5706",
"body": "Science has been improving throughout the years.\n\nReligion is the same f-ing grift from thousands of years ago, just the name(s) of the God(s) have changed.",
"date": "2023-11-11",
"id": "k8rbqkg",
"parent_id": "17shckw",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "ImpossibleSquish",
"body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
"date": "2023-11-10",
"id": "17shckw",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/"
},
{
"author": "shitsu13master",
"body": "I mean all religious beliefs are wrong so that’s a given. But science? A lot of science the ancients knew is still valid today so the science part I disagree with. Some things like the laws of nature aren’t likely to be found to be wrong, maybe we will figure out circumstances where they just behave differently. That doesn’t mean we are incorrect about them, our understanding just might be incomplete",
"date": "2023-11-11",
"id": "k8ro7pr",
"parent_id": "17shckw",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "ImpossibleSquish",
"body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
"date": "2023-11-10",
"id": "17shckw",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/"
},
{
"author": "EmbarrassedHunter675",
"body": "You only need to make the decisions that get you through life. I think cosmology is amazing, but it affects my day to day not one iota\n\nAlso not all ideas of the “ancients” were wrong - eg the idea that the earth is spherical ecial dates from at least 2500 years ago, and probably before. In ~350BC Eratosthenes actually calculated the size to a pretty good level of accuracy",
"date": "2023-11-11",
"id": "k8rtc9u",
"parent_id": "17shckw",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "ImpossibleSquish",
"body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
"date": "2023-11-10",
"id": "17shckw",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/"
},
{
"author": "physioworld",
"body": "If we came to our beliefs entirely randomly then you’d be right, but that’s not how it works.\n\nThis is similar to the argument against evolution of a hurricane in a junkyard assembling a 747 plane. You’d be right to think that’s absurd, but evolution is closer to a hurricane blowing through a junkyard and there’s like a sort of 747 shaped filter which puts things in the right place when they happen to hit the filter. \n\nModern thinking and science uses sound epistemology, we use logic to create systems which give us reasons to accept or reject claims. \n\nSo for example while we certainly believe some wrong things, the broad strokes are likely mostly correct. Like we believe the universe is 13 billion years old. More data may refine that to 12.9 or 13.1 billion years but I wouldn’t consider that to mean our current belief is “wrong”",
"date": "2023-11-11",
"id": "k8svlwu",
"parent_id": "17shckw",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "ImpossibleSquish",
"body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
"date": "2023-11-10",
"id": "17shckw",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/"
},
{
"author": "sajaxom",
"body": "Your central premise that most of the beliefs of ancient peoples are wrong is clearly incorrect. If they were, those ancient peoples would not have lived long enough to pass on their ideas. For a group to survive, most of their beliefs must be correct, and none of them can be fatal prior to being passed on, just like any other evolutionary system.\n\nTake a moment to write down all the things you think an ancient group believed that are incorrect. Then write down all the things they must have known to survive and build their society. Your second list, if you really think about it, will be far longer. Moving forward through time, true information tends to persist, while false information tends to die out, so we will only get further from having a majority of our knowledge be incorrect over time.",
"date": "2023-11-11",
"id": "k8uf52s",
"parent_id": "17shckw",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "ImpossibleSquish",
"body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
"date": "2023-11-10",
"id": "17shckw",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/"
},
{
"author": "jackneefus",
"body": "I agree with you, but why would this give you an existential crisis? Now you are armed with this information, you can explore the secrets of the universe. You would be surprised at how much unexplored territory there is. This is the fun part.",
"date": "2023-11-12",
"id": "k8waism",
"parent_id": "17shckw",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "ImpossibleSquish",
"body": "Uncertainty makes me anxious",
"date": "2023-11-12",
"id": "k8whkx6",
"parent_id": "k8waism",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "ImpossibleSquish",
"body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
"date": "2023-11-10",
"id": "17shckw",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/"
},
{
"author": "Butter_Toe",
"body": "We live in a time where silly social media articles are instantly considered truth. We have countless people who can't figure out if they have a penis or a vagina, and people who can't tell the difference. I don't think people truly believe, I think they just go with the herd based on what they are told.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "k91ssmj",
"parent_id": "17shckw",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
]
]
| moderate |
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "Superbooper24",
"body": "I think BMI is as accurate as IQ is to intelligence. Like yea there is some level of correlation however, I would never use BMI to justify you are xyz, as there would most certainly be other ways to prove it. So in a medical or scientific sense, I would never use it because it has a lot of room for error.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "k945aax",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 134,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "∆\n\nGood analogy, it's probably good in a general sense, but it does have large error bars...",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "k94id9j",
"parent_id": "k945aax",
"score": -1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "DeltaBot",
"body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Superbooper24 ([13∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Superbooper24)).\n\n^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "k94ijba",
"parent_id": "k94id9j",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
]
| [
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "GotAJeepNeedAJeep",
"body": "This is so highly contextual a view that I'm not sure where you're expecting the discussion to go.\n\nIf we supply examples of BMI being misued, you'll reply \"*That's just people using it wrong. That doesn't mean it's a bad metric.\"*\n\nWith that in mind - what does a *good* metric look like, if not one that is unripe for misuse?",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "k941qw2",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 43,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "ComplexityArtifice",
"body": "My thoughts exactly. Using myself as an example: I'm short but naturally thick. Not an uncommon occurence. My BMI has always read as being too high, even when I'm at a perfectly healthy body fat percentage.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "k9478fq",
"parent_id": "k941qw2",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "OmniManDidNothngWrng",
"body": "What metric are you using to check someone's health to prove that BMI is a good metric for someone's health? Why not just use that one instead?",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "k942mb1",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 19,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "BigSocialistCock",
"body": "Because BMI is simpler, quicker, and most widely available as a starting point for people to see where they are at. \n\nThe main potential issue a BMI scale is trying to point out is excess body fat. Yes you could spend money on scans to find everyone’s body fat percentage accurately, but that’s not economical or practically feasible. Instead you can look on a BMI scale, see that you are obese, and from there talk to a nutritionist and get more accurate data on body fat and muscle mass makeup to properly address and take care of the issue.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "k94645r",
"parent_id": "k942mb1",
"score": 9,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "Ticklemykelmo",
"body": "In a recent doctor visit my doctor mentioned my BMI. He then went on to explain what my healthy BMI weight would be, followed by explaining I would be far more unhealthy at that weight than where I am and that the BMI scale is deeply flawed. \n\nI’m going to listen to my doc and focus on losing some weight but ignoring BMI.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "k942us7",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "jatjqtjat",
"body": "I've seen people argue that the overweight section of BMI (25 to 29.9) doesn't actually correlated with poorer health outcomes, and its well know that BMI is not a good measurement for people with a LOT of muscle.\n\nBut neither of those are unfair and neither of those vilify BMI.\n\nwho is unfairly vilifying BMI?",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "k9433fp",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 12,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "BigSocialistCock",
"body": "BMI can categorize people with a lot of muscle mass incorrectly, however it actual does the opposite more often. There’s a higher chance that someone with very little muscle mass and still way too much fat mass gets placed lower on the BMI scale despite being at risk for fat related illnesses (because the BMI scale doesn’t account for fat %, and only total weight).",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "k945e3o",
"parent_id": "k9433fp",
"score": 24,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "joalr0",
"body": "Perhaps the correct stance is that we shouldn't be using any singular variable to define good health?",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "k9439ux",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 20,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "mankytoes",
"body": "Because sometimes medical professionals need a quick way to separate out particularly at risk people. For example, it's used in the NHS to identify pregnant women who need extra support. They don't have the time and resources to do an extensive health assessment of every woman, nor would every woman agree to that. Obviously they don't just use BMI, there are other things like drug use, family history of pregnancy difficulties, etc.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "k9459sv",
"parent_id": "k9439ux",
"score": 7,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "GhostPrince4",
"body": "The problem is that it isn't standardized. My BMI is 26.9 but my body fat percentage is 17% (5'7 @ 171.6). BMI doesn't take into account race, gender, age, etc. and it is a simple 2 variable calculation. More data that you have the better in terms from a pure mathematical standpoint and a single symptom doesn't point to a disease or condition accurately from a medical standpoint.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "k943aa6",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": -3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Docist",
"body": "It is fairly standardized as a screening tool when a doctor makes a judgement after looking at a patient. They would look at you and immediately realize you’re fairly muscular and anything that relates to BMI and negative health effects would not apply to you as opposed to someone with higher body fat/ lower muscle.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "k949zil",
"parent_id": "k943aa6",
"score": 8,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "shenanegins",
"body": "I find it funny that they print your BMI on your patient notes at every prenatal visit, like yeah, OBVIOUSLY it’s going up, it’s not like I’m also getting taller while gaining 0.5-1lb per week like I’m supposed to.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "k943dz3",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "phlemingoat",
"body": ">But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric\n\nIsn't that exactly the idea that most folks are objecting to? That it is a bad way to measure overall health?",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "k9440fg",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "Dramatic-Emphasis-43",
"body": "The problem with BMI as a metric is that it tries to find pigeon hole humans into a specific range when humanity is just way to diverse. \n\nSome people are just built different. They have different levels of metabolism, their muscles develop differently and are better at certain kinds of physical activity, people have different kinds of bone density, etc etc. as such, everyone just has inherently different risk factors. \n\nLike, someone could be doing everything right to maintain a healthy lifestyle and still have an unhealthy BMI (and not be an athlete), at which point, BMI is meaningless. \n\nAnd conversely, someone could have an ideal BMI but be really unhealthy. There is such a thing as skinny fat.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "k9442ym",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Flamingo47",
"body": "They're not that different though. Unless you have an abnormal amount of muscle mass (maybe 1-5% of the male population, <1% of women) it works pretty well. Metabolism and bone density are always just excuses made by fat people who refuse to acknowledge their real body composition",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "k945xmx",
"parent_id": "k9442ym",
"score": 8,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "Relevant_Maybe6747",
"body": ">BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. \n\nWhy are you only using one metric to begin with? \n\n>if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nunless you’re an outlier. I’m 4 foot 8 and my doctors don’t know what I’m ‘supposed to‘ weigh because the majority of people my height are prepubescent.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "k9443er",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 33,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "edm_ostrich",
"body": "Well, we can make pretty good guesses. 500 lbs is not right. 50 lbs is not right. And would you look at that 90 lbs gives you a BMI of 20. Even for outliers, BMI is pretty good.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "k94gs0w",
"parent_id": "k9443er",
"score": 11,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "kobayashi_maru_fail",
"body": "My scrawny ass agrees with you. My BMI is on the lower end of normal range, but I know I need to gain a little weight. And for the upper end, all the dudes using Shaq as their counter example need to hit the gym as badly as I do.\n\nIt feels like getting your FICO score from a free site: sure it’s spitballing, but it’s 95% accurate and people piss and moan about the other 5%.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "k945l9r",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "LochFarquar",
"body": ">BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, i*f they're going to just use one metric*. \n> \n>if you can cite scientific consensus, and *all you know about their health is their height and weight*.\n\nIt feels like your qualifications here indicate the reason for critiquing reliance on BMI. No one should be giving health advice off on just one metric or if all they know is height/weight. In what scenario would this be the physician's only data point? What about people who have normal BMI but other risk factors (e.g. smoking and heavy drinking are high risk factors for heart disease, even in people with normal BMI).",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "k945lk8",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 69,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "bluestjuice",
"body": "Exactly this. Which makes sense when one discovers that the first real inroads into drawing up BMI tables were from insurance companies (i.e. organizations who were highly unlikely to have more detailed medical information on which to base estimates about their clients’ health).",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "k94sssf",
"parent_id": "k945lk8",
"score": 11,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "Theevildothatido",
"body": "It's far the opposite: It's somehow actually used even by professionals regardless of how absolutely terrible it is. It wasn't even designed by a medical specialist.\n\n> But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nWhat also correlates is simple age. So why not use that metric then and determine health by nothing more than age? Everything correlates with everything.\n\nThere's one metric which is incredibly cheap to measure which is far more accurate: body fat percentage. My 14 euro scale I have at home measures this. Does it measure it up to extreme accuracy? no, but it's still more reliable to indicate health than b.m.i. by probably orders of magnitude with its inaccuracy and it's also faster than calculating b.m.i since I only need to get on it and it measures my b.f.p. by putting a current though my body and measuring the resistance so I don't have to measure my height.\n\n> Furthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nAnd yet b.f.p. is more easily measured than height nowadays with these cheap scales as I said, so why isn't there?",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "k945nt1",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "AnotherBiteofDust",
"body": "Heads up. Your scale requires putting in your height to determine bf%.\n\nAge is also a correlating factor.",
"date": "2023-11-14",
"id": "k97dlnw",
"parent_id": "k945nt1",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "spewforth",
"body": "BMI is a method of measuring the relative height to weight ratio that was designed to be applied onto *populations* for analysis. \n\nTaking any such measure and translating that onto the individual and saying the conclusions will be valid is wildly reductive. In large populations, you can make conclusions about the average health outcomes in correlation with BMI. For this purpose it is a perfectly fine metric. \n\nFor using it as a metric to tell one person they weigh too much? It is a problematic metric.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "k945v9i",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 14,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "Full-Professional246",
"body": "The core problem here is BMI is used for things it was never intended to be used for and isn't really good at. \n\nIt gets vilified because of the misuse it is has seen by medical practitioners in how they label 'obesity'.\n\n>Furthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative.\n\nThat does not mean it is a good metric though. It does not mean you can use it to make significant population level claims. That is the problem here.\n\nAll BMI is telling you is a ratio of Weight to Height. That is it. \n\nThe real problems come when you are applying this flawed but accessible public health metric to individuals. That is happening on a regular basis today. Every year in my wellness check, they calculate the BMI to tell me 'how healthy I am'. \n\nThe people who vilify its use are stating they believe *at the individual level*, it is too flawed a metric to be useful. When you have so many potential exceptions to the rule, it calls into question the rule itself.\n\nA case in point - myself. If you use the BMI - I am obese. If you compare the waist size to height for determining obesity, my waist is only 2\" larger than the high end of normal. So yeah - like most Americans, I should lose weight. But - not nearly the amount the BMI calculation would tend to indicate. \n\nBetter metrics exist for the individual and we should use those instead of BMI *for the individual*. \n\nResearch has also told us, people don't like doctors telling them they are fat so they avoid going. This avoidance of medical care has issues. We have doctors who overuse BMI to explain issues that are not actually weight related. We have doctors using this as a metric to determine joint replacements. \n\nThis misuse of BMI is contributing to this problem.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "k94657c",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 22,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "ogjaspertheghost",
"body": "Doctors also regularly use BMI as an excuse not to provide treatment and tell people to just lose weight when there are other health issues",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "k94uv0w",
"parent_id": "k94657c",
"score": 8,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "Bunniiqi",
"body": "The BMI scale was based off, and only included when making, white men, specifically white western European men, so unless you are a white western European man I’d say it’s pretty unreliable.\n\nNot to mention it was created by a mathematician, not a doctor.\n\nTo quote the source I’m going to link:\n\n“there were big limitations to Quetelet's experiment. For one, all the participants were western European men. The experiment also had nothing to do with measuring individual health.”\n\nSo it’s a theory that people have suddenly decided should be the be all end all of health, when it’s just false.\n\n[BMI is rooted in racism and discrimination, and everyone just forgets that part](https://amp.abc.net.au/article/100728416)",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "k947rb4",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 8,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Friendly_Fire",
"body": "We aren't using BMI based on what one guy wrote down in the 19 century. It's a simple metric, but a huge amount of modern research on a variety of populations show very strong correlations with many health outcomes.\n\nBMI is literally just weight scaled by height. Saying a weight of \"X\" is unhealthy is pointless since people's heights vary wildly. If you want to argue exactly where we should set the threshold for healthy/unhealthy, whatever, but the metric is fundament and useful.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "k94fybm",
"parent_id": "k947rb4",
"score": 10,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "biglipsmagoo",
"body": "I’m an adult who wears a size medium and BMI classifies me as obese. I’m most certainly not. I am thin. \n\nIt’s just not accurate for a *lot* of ppl. It’s too inaccurate for too large a population to be considered a good source to measure health.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "k947uhn",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 4,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "thaisweetheart",
"body": "what are your measurements? you are either realllyyy short or a body builder lol",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "k94b2dh",
"parent_id": "k947uhn",
"score": 4,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "Usual_One_4862",
"body": "I think criticizing BMI and recognizing its limitations is fine. I also think as a general health marker when used in the correct context BMI is acceptable to use. Regardless of what ratio of tissues constitutes the sum of a persons mass, the heart must still push blood through all of it. That is to say whether its muscle or fat the heart still has to push blood through it. Overmuscle can lead to hypertension just as overfat can. Obviously muscle tissue confers the advantage of extra glycogen storage and an increased capacity to use up energy in a work context. It's also important to consider ratios of visceral fat to sub q fat when thinking about obesity and increased risk of chronic health conditions such as type 2 dm. A person may be pudgy with low visceral fat and be quite healthy, a person with low sub q fat may have a large stomach girth with hard intra visceral fat deposits and be objectively less healthy, so judging purely on appearance in some cases is misleading.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "k9486h8",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "Can-Funny",
"body": "Using BMI as a health metric at the individual level is like looking at crime stats by race at the population level and then assessing whether the person standing next to you is a criminal based on their skin color….",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "k94968n",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "stiffneck84",
"body": "The vast majority of people who have a high BMI have it because of an excess of body fat. Yes, there are outliers in the BMI scale, but it’s nowhere near as common as people want to believe it is. We have just grown more accustomed to people being obese, that just being overweight is mistaken as being fit. 237 lbs in the 90s was considered comedic obesity. It’s probably one of the lower weights in any given room of random adults today. \n\nBody fat percentage would be more individually specific, but it requires more time and equipment to measure.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "k949xa9",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 5,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "237583dh",
"body": "BMI is a great metric for populations, but it's a poor metric for individuals. No doctor would ever give a diagnosis knowing only those two pieces of information.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "k94a6rp",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "Ramtamtama",
"body": "I think its vilified fairly.\n\nBMI only really works for a standard body type.\n\nPeople with a high muscle mass and/or large breasts will often come up as overweight even if they're otherwise the picture of perfect health",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "k94agoe",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Earthsong221",
"body": "Yeah, it was created to find the average white European male.\n\nWomen are curvy. Throw in female athlete with more muscle too, and you're constantly being told you're overweight or obese long before you ever get to that point should you gain weight later on.",
"date": "2023-11-14",
"id": "k96l6wb",
"parent_id": "k94agoe",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "teddy_002",
"body": "my BMI is ‘perfect’ and yet i’m severely disabled and have not exercised in years. my mum’s BMI is ‘obese’ despite her being far, far healthier than i am and doing far more physical labour. \n\nit’s not at all accurate, and wasn’t even designed by a doctor.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "k94b24f",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Apex_Redditor3000",
"body": "the only severely disabled thing here is your brain\n\n\"bmi isn't accurate because I have cancer. whereas my fat mom doesn't have cancer and is therefore healthier than me. bmi is not accurate at all\"\n\nfucking LOL. the fact that you think this makes any kind of sense is insane.",
"date": "2023-11-14",
"id": "k97q98c",
"parent_id": "k94b24f",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "Sweet_Speech_9054",
"body": "The problem isn’t that it’s a bad metric, it’s that more accurate metrics are hard to measure. You’re right that bmi correlates to many heath issues but there are stronger correlations to things like body fat percentage or the amount of exercise someone does. It’s just a lot harder to measure those things and everyone gets their height and weight measured very easily whenever they’re at the doctors office.\n\nThe biggest issue with bmi is the outliers. BMI only accurately predicts health concerns for average people. It isn’t accurate for a lot of people. It can cause issues with data analysis if you have to remove large portions of your sample or if a large portion of your sample causes a bias that can’t be accounted for properly.\n\nThe example most people use is body builders who are very heavy but not fat, so they may show up in an overweight category that doesn’t accurately describe them.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "k94b52l",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "philmarcracken",
"body": "https://files.catbox.moe/jnbrr6.png\n\nThat shows the outliers are not in bodybuilder territory. They're in false negative territory",
"date": "2023-11-14",
"id": "k96bazw",
"parent_id": "k94b52l",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "felidaekamiguru",
"body": "BMI is flat-out inferior in every possible way. It's a formula, that is then applied to a chart. There's no reason every single value in that chart cannot be fully optimized. Yet, BMI is bad for short and tall people. Why are we using it? There is literally no advantage to BMI over a reference chart where professionals have weighed in on every value.\n\nReplace BMI with a chart with tweaked values and we're already better off.\n\nOn top of that, we can further knowledge BMI is merely an estimate of some sort, and go with a better metric, like body fat %. Then you could have something like an EBF chart (estimated body fat) but at least this acknowledges it's an estimate. The implication being you can get a better estimate or even an accurate measurement.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "k94b5zr",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": -1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "llijilliil",
"body": ">BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric.\n\nIts a useful rough measure and as you say, if you are only going to use a single measure it and want an easy one then its a good option. \n\nThe complaints people have with it is that it is treated as a perfect measure and doctors and whatever else don't take things properly into account.\n\nFor average heights its fine, the very tall are deemed fat too early, the very short can be deemed underweight too easily. Those that have broad frames, or are athletic aren't well represented at all.\n\n> But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it.\n\nBut it isn't used that way, as \"the main measure\" it is given a status that it doesn't deserve.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "k94c0y5",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Friendly_Fire",
"body": ">For average heights its fine, the very tall are deemed fat too early\n\nIt's the opposite actually. BMI is your weight scaled by your height. It would be a perfect measure if everyone grew proportionally. Tall people tend to have longer limbs, not just scaled up frames. So they tend to cross the overweight threshold at a higher fat%.\n\nOutliers exist, but the concern over them is *way* overstated. Meaningful outliers are rare and its **obvious** who is one. If you're tall and obese due to muscle, you're going to look absolutely jacked. No doctor will get confused.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "k94hrub",
"parent_id": "k94c0y5",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "jaytrainer0",
"body": "The only thing that its ok for us to get quick general idea of where a sedentary person is. That's it. Once you are active it does out the window and it's completely inaccurate. I am about 5'11\"and 190lbs. I am 'over weight'. But if you look at other measures like the fact that I can run a 7 min mile, can do 75 pushups easily, 20 pullups, squat over 300lbs, have 11% body fat, normal blood pressure, normal cholesterol, etc. So is this an accurate measure of my health? Not in the slightest. But if I was the same hight and weight but sedentary and could do none of that it might be an indicator to look deeper, nothing more.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "k94d4nm",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "bigcee42",
"body": "BMI is clearly not made for muscular people.\n\n5'11\" and 227 lbs here, firmly in the \"obese\" category.\n\nHave a 455 lbs squat and 555 lbs deadlift. Sure I carry some body fat, but my waist is narrower than my thighs because of how much muscle I carry in my quads.",
"date": "2023-11-14",
"id": "k96v4pg",
"parent_id": "k94d4nm",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "mattyoclock",
"body": "BMI is unfairly everything. \n\n\nIt's an incredible tool, especially at the population level but even individually can serve as a great warning sign. \n\n\nThat's all it is though, and some people, even physicians, will treat it like the be all end all. \n\n\nI have a friend that's a semi-pro athlete and is technically obese. You don't need an MD to look at them brielfy and realize that they are in fact, not obese, and barely have a spare lbs on them. They have had several doctors \"concerned\" about their BMI and referring them to specialists. \n\n\nBut those people are outliers, and odds are high that your BMI is accurate to you.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "k94dair",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "Dootdoo123",
"body": "As with all guidance the government releases, it needs to be simple and dumb enough that everyone can understand. The guidance the government releases is not meant for people who actually understand things. It's meant for the lowest common denominator. \n\nSo with BMI, you have a massive obesity epidemic. Most people dont understand nutrition. What do you do to get people to understand if they are healthy or not. You make something simple like BMI. It's easy to do the math. There are tons of exceptions but it's good enough for most people to understand. \n\nIf you actually understand BMI isnt a good metric for you personally then dont use it. But for an average person BMI is a good enough metric. \n\nThere is no one size fits all. There are always outliers, like someone with 5% BF or the skinny fat person. But BMI works for 80%+ of the population, and that's the population the government needs to get the metric across. \n\nAnother false thing the government teaches is that a woman can get pregnant every single time she has unprotected sex. No she cant, theres only a small window each month. But the details are too complex. So you give wrong info to get people into the right mindset. \n\nAnother example is if you have unprotected sex, you are going to get an STD. That's not true either. Even if one person is HIV or AIDS positive it's still like a <10% chance of getting infected.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "k94f670",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "bluestjuice",
"body": "BMI predates the obesity epidemic, however.\n\nI don’t mean the origins of BMI, I mean its functional use as a public health tool. \n\nI also don’t think it’s accurate to say that we need a metric like BMI to make the public understand whether they’re fat or unhealthy. This tends to be something people have awareness of regardless of what metric is used.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "k94wd55",
"parent_id": "k94f670",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "Bulrat",
"body": "the problem with BMI is that is bullcrap.\n\nhere is why.\n\nJoe is 5.8 he has a \"normal\" bone density and a weight of 155 lbs. (good BMI or not is not relevant, the BMI is crap) he has a n XX BMI that for the sake of this is deemed the \"norm\"\n\nBob is 5.6 and hs a highetr bone denisty and also 155 lbes, his BMI is now significaly higher...and he is deemed overweight....he us NOT, his bones are heavier, his body fat ratio is the excat same but his BMI is higher....\n\nergo BMI is crap and not be taken more serious than what whipe of your boots",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "k94gwek",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "Anthroman78",
"body": "> standardized comparisons across different populations\n\nBMI actually isn't great to compare across populations. If you have a population that's particularly stocky their BMI will be particularly high, while a particularly lanky population will have a lower BMI than expected, you often see this in cold and warm adapted populations. We also have some evidence that some Asian populations may have higher risk as lower BMI's for certain conditions.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "k94ie9a",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 13,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "Lonely_orca",
"body": "I will try to change your view from another angle. \n\nIn the medical community, BMI is not vilified. I’ve also never met a patient that argued with me about using BMI, among other things, as an argument for weight loss. \n\nIt’s one of the main metrics we use to classify patients, along with age. Read any medical study, and you will see a BMI line in their first table. \n\nIt’s one of the parameters we use for cutoffs for medical interventions. Such as bariatric surgery or weight loss medication. \n\nThe other good prognosticator is the waist to hip mesures. But since it’s slightly harder to get the numbers, we overuse BMI. \n\nEssentially BMI is a great and easy tool. So easy that we might even be overusing it sometimes.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "k94ife6",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 6,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "Charloo1995",
"body": "BMI should be a screening metric and nothing more. If a person has a high BMI, they should be sent for further testing of factors like A1C or body fat composition. And I think you are likely very open to that idea. However, BMIs are frequently used as the only metric, which leads to mischaracterization of individuals’ health. \n\nAnother issue that another poster brought up is where the data from BMI came from. If the data for a BMI does not capture significant portions of the population, it is a bad model. \n\nTo your point that there isn’t a better metric, true. However that doesn’t mean BMI alone is sufficient to make policy decisions, healthcare decisions, or insurance decisions.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "k94imrk",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 312,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "This makes sense, but I also think that if other metrics we have now don't cut it, we still have to make policy decisions. I think using less fleshed out datasets to determine policy can result in things like cherry-picking being encourages. Like I wanted to pretend that there isn't an obesity epidemic, I could easily find lots of \"data\" to support that.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "k94kqpy",
"parent_id": "k94imrk",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "RedshiftSinger",
"body": "Why use BMI despite its high frequency of individual inaccuracy when you could instead use bodyfat percentage which is far more accurate a metric for health regardless of body type and athleticism? It’s not that much harder to do. \n\nBMI says I’m 20lbs underweight. I have D-cup boobs and a shoe size with “XN” at the end of it — I’m just tall and narrow by bone structure. Bodyfat percentage doesn’t even put me in the “athletic” lower range (which is still considered healthy), I’m on the lower side of the “normal” range.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "k94je8v",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "General_Esdeath",
"body": "Widespread use of a bad metric is still a bad metric. Or if it may be more accurate to say \"widespread misuse of a neutral metric\" makes it a bad metric. \n\nBad data can be poorly collected or poorly analyzed. BMI use does both. Self reported height and weight are less accurate than medically measured height and weight. Studies have actually found childhood obesity is UNDER diagnosed using BMI. \n\n\nAs well, here's a quote or two from Harvard Health.\n\n>Should we stop giving so much \"weight\" to BMI?\nMaybe. Research suggests that BMI alone frequently misclassifies metabolic health, which is linked to how much fat a person has and how it is distributed.\n\n\n>And there's another problem: current BMI definitions of overweight or obesity were based largely on white populations. Yet body composition, including percent body fat or amount of muscle mass, can vary by race and ethnic group. \n\n\n>The World Health Organization and the National Institutes of Health recommend different BMI cutoffs for overweight and obesity in people of Asian descent. Changes are being recommended for BMI cutoffs for other ethnic groups as well.\n\nAnd that begs the question, what if you are of mixed ethnicities? Full article [here](https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/how-useful-is-the-body-mass-index-bmi-201603309339)\n\nSo yeah, I don't agree that BMI is unfairly demonized.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "k94k6mc",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "koolBroski",
"body": "Yeah, you do have to take it with a grain of salt. I know I should actually theoretically be a little low in weight. I seem in decent shape at 200lbs, but it should be more like 180. I think even BMI makes me feel better than it should, although it indicates I'm barely overweight.\n\nTBH the difference I feel at the various levels makes me think it's pretty good and indicitive of something. Overwight I feel mostly fine butcould be doing my health better. When I was obese I could feel my health actively getting worse.. it's pretty even.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "k94kb77",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "MRicho",
"body": "All good GP's and Healthcare Professionals will not use this as a stand alone.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "k94mqfu",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "tehnoodnub",
"body": "I don't think anyone thinks BMI is a 'bad' metric. People just say it's not good to use in isolation, which is your conclusion. Do you have references for people arguing it's a bad metric?",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "k94ql56",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "kingpatzer",
"body": "BMI is not a \"metric\" that any competent medical professional uses in isolation. \n\nThe reason people say that BMI is a bad metric is that lay persons use it in isolation.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "k94qqt3",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "bluestjuice",
"body": "We can’t overlook that one reason there is a lot of scientific research linking BMI categories with various health outcomes is because many researchers chose to use BMI as their variable rather than some other measurable quantity. That doesn’t intrinsically make it a high quality measurement. The fact that there is less data available linking other metrics to health outcomes is a failure of researchers, and the conclusion to draw is that we need more and better designed research.\n\nUltimately, BMI functions as an awkward proxy measurement which is clunky and cumbersome when there are more directly meaningful measures that are also quantifiable and have better links to health outcomes. We don’t actually need a quantifiable metric for whether someone is fat (or how fat they are).",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "k94ruwj",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "Nice-Ad1989",
"body": "I believe it’s wrong but in a different way. I think it’s a halfway decent GUIDELINE but not the rule. I usually go off of BFP rather than bmi, but I’m already halfway fit. But at the same time if I ran strictly off bmi, I would have to be around 165 lbs. which if I actually went toward that I would look sick. Instead, I’m sitting around 185 ish but around a 8-10% BFP.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "k94rvnc",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "LeatherKey64",
"body": "If it was only used properly (ie as an indicator for further investigation), there’d be no problem. But its rampant misuse by supposedly important sources like the WHO make it a prevailing blemish on the reputation of public health experts.\n\nYou can go to the WHO website and it will tell you that if you have a BMII of 26, a height of six feet and a waist size of 16 inches, then you need to lose weight. It’s an embarrassment. How dare they state things that are so patently wrong and then clutch pearls when people don’t give credence to their every word.\n\nThis is the organization’s fault rather than that of the metric, specifically. But this type of misuse is so common that I’d argue the net effect of the metric’s existence is negative.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "k94tqb3",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "SharkSpider",
"body": "> Furthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight.\n\nYes there is. Instead of dividing by the square of height, it should be raised to a power closer to 2.5 or 3. Humans aren't paper cutouts and BMI ends up labeling overweight short people as healthy and healthy tall people as overweight.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "k94tw5q",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "TripleOhMango",
"body": "I forgot who said it but it goes like this \"BMI is a great population level health metric, but not a great individual level health metric\".\n\nYes, it is correlated with overall health. Yes, it can be improved upon. However, with other stuff out there, then why focus on BMI?",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "k94wlg5",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "viordeeiisfi",
"body": "In the Army one of my sergeants always measured a high bmi, but he was obviously fit and had a 6 pack. I realized then that there was something wrong with it",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "k94x3xs",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "PuckSR",
"body": ">Furthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight\n\n[https://www.calculator.net/army-body-fat-calculator.html](https://www.calculator.net/army-body-fat-calculator.html)\n\nWe have this, which is what the US military uses because it is far more accurate than BMI and requires only two additional measurements which are rather simple and anyone could perform",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "k94xufa",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "rejectallgoats",
"body": "Fat people don’t like BMI because it tells them they are fat. It is a fine measure for the majority of people. Going to the gym a little isn’t going to invalidate it. People will bend over backwards to throw away science that doesn’t match what they want to be true.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "k94yeso",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "Equationist",
"body": "Waist to height ratio is [far more](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0103483) [correlated](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0177175) [with health](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10250251/) [outcomes](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2021.726288/full) and equally easy to measure.\n\nThe cutoffs are also easy to remember: 0.4-0.5 for healthy weight, 0.5-0.6 for overweight, and >0.6 for obese. The 0.5 cutoff also results in a simple rule: \"keep your waist size below half your height\".\n\nThese cutoffs are applicable across races / ethnicities, including in populations where [standard BMI categories fail badly](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587%2821%2900088-7/fulltext), such as [South Asians](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0168822712005116) [and](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0144539) [East](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29136711/) [Asians](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0216069).\n\nThere's simply no good reason to be using BMI over WHtR, other than historical inertia.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "k950ne1",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "Crea8talife",
"body": "BMI's in the obese range are correlated with poorer health outcomes for some of the most prevalent diseases in the US--type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and high blood pressure.\n\nBUT about 25% of people who are 'obese' according to their BMI show no negative health indicators of these top three--diabetes, heart disease, and high blood pressure.\n\nAND about 33% of people with 'normal' BMI do show negative health indicators when measured (early indicators of diabetes, heart disease, or high blood pressure).\n\nHealth workers sometimes look at BMI and may not be adequately testing people within the 'normal' range. It's a poor overall measure of health. This was discussed recently on 'Maintenance Phase'.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "k951ij0",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "RadagastTheWhite",
"body": "It’s just overly simplistic. I’m 5’10” 185 lbs right now and squarely in the middle of the overweight range. I work out 5 days a week with some combination of weight lifting and cardio. If I dropped the 15-20 lbs of fat BMI says I should I’d be absolutely shredded with basically no body fat and I’m not even all that muscular",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "k951x4t",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "Tacoflavoredfists",
"body": "Even as an Army soldier with a perfect PT test score, my BMI was supposedly high so I had to be taped on my neck, forearms, wrists, ankles, waist, etc, to prove I was within regs. I’m a very very short Mexican woman that wasn’t considered when creating BMI. It’s not a universal application",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "k952krr",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "FlynnMonster",
"body": "BMI alone is dumb. Also if someone is at the body fat levels that BMI means anything you really don’t need their BMI number to tell you that they need to lose body fat.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "k952mcx",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "TheWorsener",
"body": "BMI is statistical not diagnostic. It's not vilified. It's misused.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "k95451y",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "athiestchzhouse",
"body": "BMI IS GARBAGE.\n\nTrying to adhere to it in the Air Force almost killed my friend.\n\nMy friend was 300+ at the time 6’4. He was shaped like a monstrous warrior, but because of his waist he was considered obese. \n\nAbolish its use",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "k959sxz",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "THELEDISME",
"body": "not exactly a proper counter argument, however bit of anecdotal evidence:\n\n​\n\nI was born rather short, but with above average chest width, plus until few years ago I was doing lots of fight sports (up to 12h a week), I am bit worse now, but still I am trying to keep in shape. although I have rather flat stomach each of my new GPs looks in the papers and mindlessly tells me I am heavily obese.\n\nMy Bestie is taller by 10cm and bit of skinny fat, as you could guess yes, he is absolutely BMI-proper, Doctor reads it off the shit, and is like okay, although he could use some training back then, cause his fat completely rolled over his belt. \n\n\nWhere I am going with this is, I am not training much for the last couple of years, but my BMI has not changed one bit. When I was in peak athletic form they gave me shit for BMI, and when I didn't it's exactly the same. It's not a matter of few extremes, I was never bodybuilder, I was never a pro. Just got bit of a stocky genes, and my friends had bit of skinny fat build- still, unfortunately, better than what's normal nowadays. \n\n\nOn the other note you have plenty of actual scientific critique online",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "k95c9u2",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "Supraman21",
"body": "My favorite part of BMI posts is looking at the profiles of all the people that argue against it. It never surprises me.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "k95d4lj",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Ansuz07",
"body": "Sorry, u/Supraman21 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\r\n\r\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). \r\n\r\nIf you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20Supraman21&message=Supraman21%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\\[their%20comment\\]\\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/-/k95d4lj/\\)%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. \r\n\r\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
"date": "2023-11-14",
"id": "k98mp69",
"parent_id": "k95d4lj",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "tyrantianious",
"body": "Large frame skelete structures weight more and can hold more muscle.\n\nAnd by large skelete I don't mean \"big bone\" those people are just fat. As there are people build with wider frames.\n\nThe difference is only a 5-15lbs increase above the max healthy weight. Before it's considered unhealthy",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "k95jwpp",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "Tank_Girl_Gritty_235",
"body": "In short, it's not inherently terrible and the number of people it correctly categorizes is more than those it doesn't and it would not be an issue if it was used with the same significance as someone's blood pressure and temperature on that visit. Unfortunately the medical system is stressed and over-managed with bureaucracy so this one, tiny metric has become over-emphasized and categorizes people as healthy or unhealthy without the nuance and confirmation that it needs. It was never meant to be a measurement of health or even healthy body fat distribution, which makes its implementation as such even more concerning and frustrating.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "k95m0to",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "1836492746",
"body": "I feel like the opposite is true: that BMI is overly glorified. If health insurance providers are basing the price of their premiums off a measurement that doesn’t apply fairly to everyone, that’s a problem. You’re right that BMI is accurate for MOST people, but it seems to have become the standard that is used across the whole of society and not just a general starting point.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "k95ou7u",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 7,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "corakken",
"body": "There are too many factors that render BMI useless on an individual level. People who are particularly tall or short, anyone with a significant amount of muscle mass (also, people who have well below average muscle mass), many POC have different fat distribution patterns that the BMI system can't accurately account for, it can't account for the difference between cutaneous and visceral fat which have wildly different health implications. \n\nIt's fine to use it as a starting point, but it's not particularly useful as a measure of health for most people",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "k95p5r3",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "palmtree42069",
"body": "In my opinion, BMI is pretty useless to determine health. If your weight is unhealthy, it's usually visible without calculating the BMI. Another point is that there are rigid borders between underweight, normal weight and overweight. It just doesn't make sense that 24.9 is normal weight and 25 is overweight. Since it was developed as a statistical tool, it fails to take the individual into consideration. Some people might be absolutely fine and healthy even though their BMI indicates underweight, while others struggle with their health due to their weight even though their BMI is in the supposedly healthy range. The BMI is good at making broad assumptions, e.g. someone with a BMI of 15 will almost always be underweight. But then again, if someone has a BMI of 15 you don't need to calculate the BMI to find out that the person is underweight.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "k95rdh7",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "audaciousmonk",
"body": "It’s not a metric, it’s a qualitative indicator.\n\nIt doesn’t tell you if someone is actually healthy or not, but it can be combined with other indicators to identify potential risks to assess / watch for.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "k95s7qv",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "oldmomlady3",
"body": "BMI is terrible for measuring health metrics. I am 5'7\" and was STARVING myself, passing out regularly a few times a week from not eating, and I was weighing in at 148 lbs. I could not get below 148. That put me at the high end of normal weight. BMI was literally invented by life insurance companies to help them charge people more for policies.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "k95s8y2",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "Desperate_Climate677",
"body": "BMI is a statistical measure that only makes sense for a population and frankly not practical for individuals",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "k95u65k",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "Itisnoteddie",
"body": "Here’s a bunch of research that shows BMI is super flawed. Your fatphobia is showing. \n\nhttps://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/bmi-a-poor-metric-for-measuring-peoples-health-say-experts/\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2930234/\n\nhttps://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106268439\n\nAnd this one, although just an introductory blurb for an edition of AMA Ethics, has a great bibliography. \n\nhttps://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/whats-wrong-overreliance-bmi/2023-07\n\nTldr: BMI is useful ONLY as a way to track changes, not as a diagnostic tool. Medicine relies on BMI far too often, to the detriment of patients and their overall health. No, BMI is not, in fact, useful for public health BECAUSE IT GETS THINGS WRONG ALL THE TIME!",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "k95w3rv",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Itisnoteddie",
"body": "And no, it’s not a good screening tool either.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "k95w6q6",
"parent_id": "k95w3rv",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "vilk_",
"body": "What percent of people with BMI over 29 aren't fat? Like, 0.0001%?",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "k95z7wx",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "Annanon1",
"body": "BMI may work for some, but as a black woman with ass , thighs, and a robust chest, 5'7 175 pounds says I'm nearly obese. My stomach is pretty flat, my bloodwork is in a perfect range. I have a freaking stairmaster in my home that I use 4 days week. I'm not overweight, but BMI is based on a white northwestern European man, and number are reduce to fit what they think women should be. I have no desire to be the stick figure white men want their women to be so yeah...",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "k960dvb",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "Asleep-Fee-9618",
"body": "BMI was made by a mathematician not a physician. The fact it’s used is complete BS. Body FAT percentage is way more useful. A 200 lb hourglass woman with some muscle is way healthier than a 120 lb girl with a big gut, and no muscle tone.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "k963l55",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "denys1973",
"body": "A big part of the problem is that a lot of average people think they are muscular and are really just fatties.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "k96462a",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "Mobile_Eggplant_1764",
"body": "It's not accurate if you have alot of muscle. They should measure bodyfat percentage.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "k965rrr",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "JeVeuxCroire",
"body": "Here is the issue with the BMI. \n\nSomeone who the BMI classifies as either overweight or obese goes to the doctor for back pain. The doctor tells them that this is common for people who are overweight and encourages them to go on a diet. They're in *a lot* of pain and they think it's more serious than that, so they get a second opinion from a different doctor. Then a third, and maybe more. \n\nEventually, a doctor listens and orders some tests and diagnoses them with a slipped disc. \n\nFat people get worse healthcare, and the BMI matrix has a lot to do with that, and *that* is the issue. It's not that the BMI says you're overweight. It's that the BMI tells your doctor that you're overweight, and often, that means that your doctor isn't going to look as hard for issues as they would for someone who is thin.",
"date": "2023-11-14",
"id": "k96ch34",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "TheMadManiac",
"body": "I think it's shit because you can be the right weight for your height but have no muscle on you. If you can't do even 1 pull-up then you are unhealthy",
"date": "2023-11-14",
"id": "k96cj93",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "Jackalope3434",
"body": "TLDR; A good metric would be one that is well understood and accepted as a functional truth, not so frequently misunderstood that it makes a good majority of healthy individuals feel “overweight” (as compared to the actual point for health indication which is NOT explicit in the way it’s presented or qualifies people). \n\nBMI lends to eating disorders in youth due to schools/doctors being unable/unwilling to give the full educational insights. While the source I have is a blog, because I’m not invested enough to search for extensive research docs, I am also speaking from experience. I’ve never been even close to overweight, always a student athlete, full ride to college for track but not a crazy low body fat %, and that BMI chased me down in my nightmares. I ended up in the hospital trying to get my BMI down so I felt healthy. \n\n\n\nhttps://www.nationaleatingdisorders.org/blog/changing-way-we-measure-health",
"date": "2023-11-14",
"id": "k96e25q",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "No-Calligrapher-3630",
"body": "Agree it's vilified for silly reasons. \n\n Don't agree it's a metric of health, it's an indicator of health. There are too many things BMI doesn't tell you about health. E.g., if you have cancer, of you have Parkinsons, if you are anemic, if you broke a bone, if you have an auto immune disease.\n\nBMI is associated with health. And is a decent predictor.... But I wouldn't agree it's any overall metric of health. \n\nAlso disagree with how people use the point of athletes have high BMI, so they are an exception to BMI being useful. Just because you're physically fit, doesn't mean you are healthy. Loads of body builders can have physical health complications.l because they are so big. Having incredibly low body fat can still be very unhealthy, even if you run miles.\n\n\nI agree with your overall point though.",
"date": "2023-11-14",
"id": "k96gey4",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "WildAsOrange",
"body": "My fiancee is a dietician in a hospital and one of her specialisations is treating body dismorphia and eating disorders:\n\nBMI is not a good factor of health because it doesn't take body composition into account. \n\nA heavyweight boxing champion can have a BMI of 30 while being 5'11\" and weight 220 which indicates obesity and still be healthy. \n\nA marathon runner can be healthy with a BMI that would indicate underweight. \n\n\nA normal dude can look healthy and still be overweight by the means of BMI",
"date": "2023-11-14",
"id": "k96hp0p",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "icantbelieveatall",
"body": "Right so I guess I just have a complicated relationship with BMI…\n\nA few years ago I was very aggressively told by my medical providers that I needed to increase my BMI (as in, you will get put on medical leave and forced to leave university unless you can rectify this situation immediately). J worked veryyyy hard to try and fix the issue, because I never got as underweight as I was because of body image, I had severe untreated depression causing a lack in appetite. I did everything my pcp and my nutritionist told me to do and it wasn’t working. My psychiatrist ended up changing my antidepressant, and when they did they told me that one of the meds I could move to had the potential side affect of significant weight gain. Being concerned about my ability to stay at my educational institution (and my entire life at the time) I immediately chose that medication. Consequently, about a year and a half later my weight had very close to doubled.\n\nI am no longer taking that medicine, and about 2 years from the time that medical professionals being concerned about my weight. I am currently considered overweight, but am consistently losing weight (at about a rate of 7 pounds per month). This development is very concerning to me. This trend seems likely to continue, and I’m trying very hard to maintain my weight at the (officially considered unhealthy) BMI level I am currently at. Because I do not want to go anywhere near the point I was at before. And getting even close to that point puts me far too close to the point where my life opportunities are limited because I am underweight. So for me, being considered “overweight” by BMI metrics (and I should clarify, by my medical professionals as well) is absolutely completely the most healthy place my weight could be right now. \n\nSo like, looking at just a metric of weight versus height cannot accurately predict what is most healthy for an individual in that moment. when I was severely underweight the associated health issues were evident in more than just the number, and while I am currently considered ovetweight the health benefits of this situation are evident in more than just the number. So I guess like the number isn’t horrible, but I take issue with the notion that you can assign specific health characteristics on the basis of specific BMI cut offs. The number is just not as clear an important metric for overall health as many seem to believe. And soooo many seem to think it is.\n\nLike hey, my medical providers and I have decided that working to maintain my current “overweight” BMI status is vital.\n\nCan I also add, I was inaccurately diagnosed by one doctor as anorexic based purely on my BMI. and this incorrect diagnosis pushed me down a medical path which was distinctly harmful to my overall health because it assigned the “blame” of my issue to completely inaccurate places and encouraged me to do the same, without recognition that these assumptions were extremely oversimplified.\n\nSo I guess my point is that when we say “these are the numbers of this particular metric which mean this particular thing” is, in this situation, harmful. Because the number can indicate any number of things, but medical professionals are only taught to see it as one particular thing. So every time I see a medical professional who would measure this value I have to spend far too long explaining the personal history behind this number to limit the immediate and inaccurate assumptions they will have. This is invasive and stupid. From my experience (and my understanding, speaking to others, is that this is true for most people with an unusual health history), the use of this metric has broadly served to oversimplify the medical treatment of the person, at the detriment of their actual potential for helpful treatment",
"date": "2023-11-14",
"id": "k96i10b",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Finklesfudge",
"body": "Those are all examples of people misusing the tool. \n\nI think your point boils down to \"People who misuse tools can be harmful\".\n\nIt doesn't really make the tool harmful at all.",
"date": "2023-11-14",
"id": "k9709pz",
"parent_id": "k96i10b",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "veryreasonable",
"body": "So I'm one of those people for whom BMI happens to be a fairly a terrible metric of my relative health. That is, I'm 6'4\" and vaguely athletic. As you may already know, BMI does not take into account that volume (i.e. weight) grows non-linearly with surface area (i.e. height), and essentially, it's a metric designed to work well for people of average height, passably for people with off-average height, and not really at all for the people on the extremes of short or tall. \n\nSo, like, I've got visible abs, but I'm borderline \"obese,\" according to my traditional BMI. Or, more concretely, by any of the easy-to-calculate alternative metrics - waist-to-height ratio, simply tweaking the math of the BMI calculation, etc - I'm very healthy or even extremely healthy. BMI is just too simple and produces rather innacurate results for a non-trivial minority segment of the population. \n\nI don't necessarily believe it should be \"vilified\" for this, but I have seen it used before in situations where it was rather absurd - including for myself - and medical professionals just jot down my BMI as though it puts me in a category that it really really shouldn't.\n\nThus, I can challenge part of your view, I think very effectively: there are good reasons for BMI as it stands now to be at the very least called out as a metric, *and* we have demonstrably better alternative metrics, some of which are no more difficult to calculate (e.g. kg/m^2.5 instead of the usual kg/m^2). If our present metric is flawed, *and* we have a better alternative metric available that eliminates those same flaws while being just as easy to calculate, there is every reason to call out the present metric and adopt the alternative metric. \n\nReally, the only possible defence of traditional (kg/m^2) BMI I think you could make in this context is cultural inertia - and that's a pretty dodgy defence, to say the least. \n\n-------------------------------\n\nInterestingly, because BMI is less useful specifically for edge-cases in height (and athleticism), it's probably still pretty defensible when used in statistics, for example to roughly evaluate obesity trends among national populations. That is, the edge cases either cancel one another out, or else they simply don't contribute enough to the bell curve to throw off the results. But, again, in the case of individuals, it remains a flawed metric, **and we have better ones.**",
"date": "2023-11-14",
"id": "k96ip6u",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "BoysenberryDry9196",
"body": "> But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric\n\nIt's a terrible metric for measuring anyone's individual health.\n\nIt's only even partially useful on a sociological level.",
"date": "2023-11-14",
"id": "k96mj1x",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "Bi9D1ckR1ck",
"body": "You're fat, get over it.",
"date": "2023-11-14",
"id": "k96mn1e",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Ansuz07",
"body": "Sorry, u/Bi9D1ckR1ck – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\r\n\r\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). \r\n\r\nIf you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20Bi9D1ckR1ck&message=Bi9D1ckR1ck%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\\[their%20comment\\]\\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/-/k96mn1e/\\)%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. \r\n\r\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
"date": "2023-11-14",
"id": "k99048y",
"parent_id": "k96mn1e",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "beatisagg",
"body": "I can, through only terribly unhealthy actions, raise or lower my BMI if given enough time and willpower.",
"date": "2023-11-14",
"id": "k96u0o3",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "StEvE19095",
"body": "If a waist measurement was added to the equation it would then be solid and much more reliable",
"date": "2023-11-14",
"id": "k96um0t",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "VFequalsVeryFcked",
"body": "People use BMI incorrectly, that's why it's villified.\n\nIt's a perfectly good metric when used appropriately in the context of a thorough social history.\n\nIt's why it should only br used by appropriately trained health and social care professionals. GP Doctors and Nurses are notorious for getting it wrong, even though, on paper, they should be the best at applying it.",
"date": "2023-11-14",
"id": "k96xno2",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "Specialist-Ad6309",
"body": "It's just a general guideline and most of the time it works. And I'm saying that being 193 cm, 110 kg, which means BMI would put me in the obesity range even though I'm not in a bad shape :D",
"date": "2023-11-14",
"id": "k97bz2a",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "Sarcastic_Wormhole",
"body": "Black people aren't monkeys, that's an insult to monkeys",
"date": "2023-11-14",
"id": "k97dgr9",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Ansuz07",
"body": "Sorry, u/Sarcastic_Wormhole – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: \r\n\r\n> **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. \r\n\r\nComments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and \"written upvotes\" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. \r\n\r\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20Sarcastic_Wormhole&message=Sarcastic_Wormhole%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\\[their%20comment\\]\\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/-/k97dgr9/\\)%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted.",
"date": "2023-11-14",
"id": "k97kcf5",
"parent_id": "k97dgr9",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "CanyonCoyote",
"body": "This is the correct take and the fatphobia whiners are hurting way more people than they are helping. Every single doctor will tell you there is a healthy weight and being a healthy weight and in shape helps with overall health.",
"date": "2023-11-14",
"id": "k97ewgh",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "Precinct_Thirteen",
"body": "The problem with BMI is that an \"abnormal\" one can either indicate an unusually unhealthy individual, or an unusually healthy one. Basically, bmi doesn't correlate well with actual health considerations, which makes it a poor assessment of health, even as a public health metric. It would mark someone like [brian shaw](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Shaw_(strongman)) as being morbidly unhealthy, despite him being one of the greatest strong athletes of all time.",
"date": "2023-11-14",
"id": "k97glz1",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "entarian",
"body": "When I'm actually in shape, I'm one of the people that BMI doesn't work for and I realize that it's usually a pretty good tool. I'm 6 ft 2 and my legs are about as long as my wife's who's 5 ft 4. BMI just doesn't work for me.",
"date": "2023-11-14",
"id": "k97kzsc",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "Srapture",
"body": "The only people who try to discredit the BMI scale's usefulness are obese people in denial.\n\n\"ThE rOcK's BmI sAyS He'S oBeSe!11\"\n\nYeah, the Rock is totally a representative sample of the average person. I'm sure he's going to take that BMI completely to heart and starve himself. I'm sure dwarfs and that dude who is 2.5m tall have not particularly helpful BMI results as well. Completely inane point to make.",
"date": "2023-11-14",
"id": "k97lley",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "hogliterature",
"body": "a large reason we still use BMI today is simply because we have been using it for a long time and we have the data to back up what we do know about it",
"date": "2023-11-14",
"id": "k97m293",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "thelightkeeper28",
"body": "There is no need to change your view because it is correct. BMI is useful as a screening metric, as a broad measure of population-level health and risk level for myriad diseases and conditions, correlates fairly well with health on an individual level, is easily calculable, and a readily standardizable/useable measure across a variety of specialties for study purposes.\n\nThe amount of people for whom BMI does not predict these things as accurately as it would for the people for whom it does fully apply is small enough to be insignificant in the grand scheme of things and for policy making.\n\nThe problem is that most people with a problem with BMI have deluded themselves into thinking they fall within these extremes. This applies as equally to the gym bros who think they are at athlete-level physical condition as it does to severely overweight women who have convinced themselves they have a thyroid problem or are big-boned. I say this not to shame or discriminate but to highlight that the backlash against BMI can have varied underlying beliefs as the cause. \n\nThe only kernel of truth the BMI naysayers hold is that you cannot really use a single metric to quantify the entirety of a persons health. But then truthfully, we don’t do so when evaluating individuals and when you’re talking at the population level, you actually do need one or few metrics that encapsulate the vast majority of the population so you can create policy. BMI does that.",
"date": "2023-11-14",
"id": "k97mg3d",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "Insight42",
"body": "It's a rule of thumb, and generally a solid one for that use.\n\nPeople (rightly) bring up the flaws because it's sometimes used as more than that, particularly in the last decade or so. Or used for kids, where it is often inaccurate.\n\nIt's not the fault of the metric itself when it's used for shit it wasn't intended for.",
"date": "2023-11-14",
"id": "k97nox9",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "ShamrockAPD",
"body": "BMI says I’m obese. \n\nI can assure you, my six pack says otherwise. Your first statement is the most important one- it works for MOST people. But those who are athletes their entire lives or live in the gym- it’ll call all of us obese.",
"date": "2023-11-14",
"id": "k97pk9e",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Old_Basket_868",
"body": "Yep, BMI says my skinny in-shape husband is overweight. \nBut it doesn’t even necessarily work for most people. I mean, it works to measure weight/height ratio. That’s it. \nIt doesn’t work for athletes, it doesn’t work for the black population, it doesn’t work for skinny-fat people\n\nAnd furthermore, in…I think it was 1998 they lowered the BMI number for what constitutes overweight and obese. There was a slew of people who were newly “obese” and there was a national wigging-out. \n\nHooray for the real winner, the diet industry!",
"date": "2023-11-14",
"id": "k98z3nu",
"parent_id": "k97pk9e",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "CheshireKetKet",
"body": "#Ask Your Doctor\n\nThe professional with all your lab work? That's the person who has almost the info who can make an educated comment on your heath and weight. \n\nI've said this since day one. \n\nStrangers on reddit and in the internet like to think they have enough into to comment on people's weight. \n\nI used to take meds that made me gain 20 pounds in a month. I felt like shit. And everyone was just like \"eat less!\" \n\nI stopped the meds and lost 25 pounds. I eat the same. \n\nPeople need to understand that they don't know everything all of the time. Sometimes it's okay to scroll past or ask questions. You don't have to make shit up if you don't know what you're talking about.",
"date": "2023-11-14",
"id": "k97runf",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "Doomkauf",
"body": "I think a big part of the problem is that BMI works best as a population-level metric but tends to fall apart on an individual level, but we haven't developed a better individual-level metric so we keep using it in a way that highlights its weaknesses rather than its strengths. It notoriously doesn't account for some pretty common variables that can skew someone's rating, fluid retention and musce mass being two of the more common ones, but it *does* give a pretty decent population-level overview of a location or particular demographic. \n\nThe BMI of a bodybuilder is likely to be quite simply inaccurate, as will the BMI of anyone taking medications that cause fluid retention (and that's quite a surprising number of people), but when applied to a large number of people, the majority of whom will not have those conditions, it becomes useful for assessing general weight trends and related health trends.",
"date": "2023-11-14",
"id": "k982e5f",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "girhen",
"body": "Your caveats are exactly why BMI is fairly villified. Nuances like race, age, athleticism, etc. lead to people who shouldn't be singled out getting singled out when doctors and health groups don't take any amount of nuance to their approach.\n\nIf you're going to say BMI is a useful tool, you have to advocate for it to be fairly used. That isn't always the case.\n\nIt's like when an old person tries to overuse one piece of software for everything. Picture slideshows in PowerPoint. Flow charts in PowerPoint. Free body diagrams for engineering in PowerPoint.\n\nWhen I criticize PowerPoint for being improperly used and overused, I'm not saying it's a bad tool. I'm properly villifying its use outside its useful value.\n\nBMI is fairly villified as being overused out of context by tons of people who should know better. If you can learn medicine, you can look at an athlete and put an asterisk in there. Instead of 'obese', write 'athlete'.",
"date": "2023-11-14",
"id": "k986xro",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "SleepyBidenMan",
"body": "This is why I no longer consider what doctors have to say about general health. If I need a surgery I will go to a doctor. If I need health advice I will do my own research, just like you!",
"date": "2023-11-14",
"id": "k987es0",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "Dametequitos",
"body": "dang i read this as BLM at first and was expecting an unmitigated s-show xD",
"date": "2023-11-14",
"id": "k988eqg",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "Educational_Quail_40",
"body": "Waist/hip ratio is a better indicator of WHERE fat is deposited rather than just overall fat on one's body. Apple-shaped people -- where more fat is deposited around the middle torso and closer to the heart -- are far more likely to die from heart disease than pear-shaped people, who have more fat in their hips and thighs. BMI doesn't tell you WHERE the fat is located, and that's a shortcoming of using BMI alone.",
"date": "2023-11-14",
"id": "k989m6l",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "candikanez",
"body": "You should probably research \"skinny fat\" and see just how ridiculous BMI really is.",
"date": "2023-11-14",
"id": "k98m10c",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "Old_Basket_868",
"body": "The person who came up with BMI literally said that is should not be used to measure health.",
"date": "2023-11-14",
"id": "k98y90c",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "shtreddt",
"body": "It isn't hard to develop a better metric, only it needs to rely on what people report, not objective measrements.",
"date": "2023-11-14",
"id": "k99lxff",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "awbradl9",
"body": "BMI is a statistical tool for looking at populations and can be useful for children. It was never intended to measure the health of adults, especially men. It’s ridiculous that it’s used this way so frequently. For example, My paperwork says I’m overweight but my doc tells me it’s the opposite and that I shouldn’t try to lose weight.",
"date": "2023-11-14",
"id": "k99wv13",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "Important-Nose3332",
"body": "I do always find it funny when regular people bring up how it doesn’t account for lean muscle like the reason they’re 300 pounds is their giant biceps and quads.",
"date": "2023-11-14",
"id": "k9a3z1p",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "iamerk24",
"body": "BMI is not designed for individual use, it was designed for use on large populations, and it is very good when used appropriately",
"date": "2023-11-14",
"id": "k9amlq3",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "insomniax20",
"body": "I worked out all of my adult life. Even at the height of my goals when I was at the gym 5 days a week, sometime twice a day, I was 6' tall,105kg and 5% body fat which made me technically obese.\n\n​\n\n10 years later, I'm still being screen requests for diabetes because of the BMI my doctor recorded back then.",
"date": "2023-11-14",
"id": "k9aot9t",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "Queasy-Insurance3559",
"body": "There are LOTS of people that BMI misses or unreasonably categorizes. \n\n\nI'm 5'7\", 215lbs, and female. According to BMI I am pretty firmly in the 'obese' category and your image of me will likely be of a severely heavy, fat woman. I am by no means slight or dainty but I am not huge. I'm definitely a bit chubby in the middle and have a long torso and short legs. I am not an athlete or a gymrat but I am very strong for my size. \n\n\nThe lightest I've ever been as an adult was in the low 170's and I had my ribs and collarbone showing decently, my eyes were sunken. BMI still puts me in the 'Overweight' Category at that size",
"date": "2023-11-15",
"id": "k9e21ke",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "faithiestbrain",
"body": "The only way I'll ever have a BMI that doesnt classify me as overwight is through some extreme diet or lypo, two things I'd never consider. I'm 5'11\" with a 22\" waist, I'm basically a barbie, and decidedly not \"overwight\" to anyone who's ever seen me. \n\nIt's a good metric for people who fit a particular shape, but if you deviate from that shape much you're basically never going to have a BMI that accurately reflects your health. It might work if developed in and for a more homogenous population but in the US we're too different to try to have a catch-all like this.",
"date": "2023-11-16",
"id": "k9jbbon",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "Plenty-Bee-4353",
"body": "I am 31 years old and have never in my entire life heard anyone ever mention BMI in a social environment, let alone vilify it.",
"date": "2023-11-17",
"id": "k9m69m7",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "feartrich",
"body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
"date": "2023-11-13",
"id": "17ujao3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 250,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/"
},
{
"author": "Deltac1955",
"body": "Waist-to-height ratio may have more merit than either BMI or weight, regardless of body type.\n\n[https://youtu.be/MMNQTubs13o?si=-3\\_FunJqYL4pY-LQ](https://youtu.be/MMNQTubs13o?si=-3_FunJqYL4pY-LQ)\n\n[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20819243/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20819243/)\n\nHere's the Navy's implementation:\n\nhttps://www.bizcalcs.com/body-fat-navy/",
"date": "2023-12-10",
"id": "kct06yb",
"parent_id": "17ujao3",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
]
]
| challenge |
[
{
"author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
"body": "This post is partially inspired by this news story: [Bin Laden's Letter to US Stuns Young Americans: 'He Was Right'](https://www.newsweek.com/bin-laden-letter-us-stuns-young-americans-he-was-right-1844234)\n\nFrancis Fukuyama is an American political scientist who wrote of the \"End of History\". This concept posits that with fascism and communism defeated, humanity will now gravitate towards a gradual universal adoption of capitalist liberal democracy. Fukuyama also claimed that the \"End of History\" will reduce conflicts between nations as the people concern themselves less with ideology and national identity, as increasing economic prosperity becomes the main concern and smooths over other concerns. Thanks to recent history, I think that such a concept is now laughable:\n\n* Regarding the news story about young Americans agreeing with Bin Laden, this goes to show that even within capitalist liberal democracies, this model is being undermined inconvenient truths, which are further spread by social media and influencers.\n * There is a lot of dirt to be dug up about capitalist liberal democracies (e.g. regime change operations, war crimes, atrocities against indigenous peoples). With the advent of the internet, these inconvenient truths are easier to find and therefore further weaken our nations through distrust, while more authoritarian countries can keep their dirt under wraps.\n * I'm not against truth and freedom of information, I'm just pointing out that the model that Fukuyama believed would triumph is actually quite fragile and easy to undermine.\n* [Democratic backsliding](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_backsliding) is occurring in many countries across the world, vastly overshadowing any progress in democratisation:\n * See [this report from 2020](https://web.archive.org/web/20210914030243/https://www.v-dem.net/media/filer_public/74/8c/748c68ad-f224-4cd7-87f9-8794add5c60f/dr_2021_updated.pdf) or [this report from 2022](https://web.archive.org/web/20230314164628/https://bti-project.org/en/reports/global-dashboard?&cb=00000).\n * There seems to be a perverse incentive to democratic backsliding, as increasing autocracy appears to be advantageous to leaders who intend to govern like a Paradox Interactive grand strategy game (i.e. to make their country even more powerful on the world stage).\n * Additionally, [multiple countries are experiencing a double whammy of democratic backsliding and political polarisation](https://carnegieendowment.org/2022/01/18/what-happens-when-democracies-become-perniciously-polarized-pub-86190), [which is also growing around the world](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/11/16/most-across-19-countries-see-strong-partisan-conflicts-in-their-society-especially-in-south-korea-and-the-u-s/).\n* Living standards in capitalist liberal democracies are decreasing, which sows doubt on the promises of capitalism and liberal democracy:\n * See \"[Living standards tumbling in Australia despite booming national wealth](https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/living-standards-tumbling-in-australia-despite-booming-national-wealth,15747)\" and \"[Britons ‘need to accept’ they’re poorer, says Bank of England economist](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/apr/25/britons-need-to-accept-theyre-poorer-says-bank-of-england-economist)\".\n * Even if you blame external factors for these problems, such as the COVID-19 pandemic or the Russian invasion of Ukraine, these events prove to us the resilience of authoritarian systems in the PRC and Russia in contrast to liberal democracies, as declining living standards don't destabilise them as much.\n * The large-scale international resurgence of the far-right is [partially fed by legitimate concerns of economic insecurity](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/31/across-europe-the-far-right-is-rising-that-it-seems-normal-is-all-the-more-terrifying).\n\nTo conclude, while I believe that Fukuyama's concepts have been debunked by recent history, I can also understand why Fukuyama made such claims in the 1990s. Back then, he wouldn't have been able to foresee the problems that we're facing now.",
"date": "2023-11-24",
"id": "183a31j",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 292,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Francis Fukuyama's \"End of History\" has been proven wrong",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/183a31j/cmv_francis_fukuyamas_end_of_history_has_been/"
},
{
"author": "TimelessJo",
"body": "There are critiques of the concept, but you’re fundamentally misunderstanding it. Fukuyama acknowledges the possibility of backsliding, just that a liberal democracy is the eventual endpoint with communism and fascism serving as modern modes of governance that go beyond the liberal democracy but ultimately fail to serve the needs of the people. When Fukuyama says history, he means history seen as a conflict over developing the best way for humans to live and he argues that we already found the endpoint of that conflict regardless if humans accept it or not.",
"date": "2023-11-24",
"id": "kanm6j7",
"parent_id": "183a31j",
"score": 42,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
"body": "!delta\n\nFukuyama claims that capitalist liberal democracy is an ideal endpoint, not that we'll constantly make progress towards that goal.",
"date": "2023-11-24",
"id": "kanr6qr",
"parent_id": "kanm6j7",
"score": 11,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "DeltaBot",
"body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/TimelessJo ([6∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/TimelessJo)).\n\n^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
"date": "2023-11-24",
"id": "kanr9kq",
"parent_id": "kanr6qr",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
]
| [
[
{
"author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
"body": "This post is partially inspired by this news story: [Bin Laden's Letter to US Stuns Young Americans: 'He Was Right'](https://www.newsweek.com/bin-laden-letter-us-stuns-young-americans-he-was-right-1844234)\n\nFrancis Fukuyama is an American political scientist who wrote of the \"End of History\". This concept posits that with fascism and communism defeated, humanity will now gravitate towards a gradual universal adoption of capitalist liberal democracy. Fukuyama also claimed that the \"End of History\" will reduce conflicts between nations as the people concern themselves less with ideology and national identity, as increasing economic prosperity becomes the main concern and smooths over other concerns. Thanks to recent history, I think that such a concept is now laughable:\n\n* Regarding the news story about young Americans agreeing with Bin Laden, this goes to show that even within capitalist liberal democracies, this model is being undermined inconvenient truths, which are further spread by social media and influencers.\n * There is a lot of dirt to be dug up about capitalist liberal democracies (e.g. regime change operations, war crimes, atrocities against indigenous peoples). With the advent of the internet, these inconvenient truths are easier to find and therefore further weaken our nations through distrust, while more authoritarian countries can keep their dirt under wraps.\n * I'm not against truth and freedom of information, I'm just pointing out that the model that Fukuyama believed would triumph is actually quite fragile and easy to undermine.\n* [Democratic backsliding](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_backsliding) is occurring in many countries across the world, vastly overshadowing any progress in democratisation:\n * See [this report from 2020](https://web.archive.org/web/20210914030243/https://www.v-dem.net/media/filer_public/74/8c/748c68ad-f224-4cd7-87f9-8794add5c60f/dr_2021_updated.pdf) or [this report from 2022](https://web.archive.org/web/20230314164628/https://bti-project.org/en/reports/global-dashboard?&cb=00000).\n * There seems to be a perverse incentive to democratic backsliding, as increasing autocracy appears to be advantageous to leaders who intend to govern like a Paradox Interactive grand strategy game (i.e. to make their country even more powerful on the world stage).\n * Additionally, [multiple countries are experiencing a double whammy of democratic backsliding and political polarisation](https://carnegieendowment.org/2022/01/18/what-happens-when-democracies-become-perniciously-polarized-pub-86190), [which is also growing around the world](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/11/16/most-across-19-countries-see-strong-partisan-conflicts-in-their-society-especially-in-south-korea-and-the-u-s/).\n* Living standards in capitalist liberal democracies are decreasing, which sows doubt on the promises of capitalism and liberal democracy:\n * See \"[Living standards tumbling in Australia despite booming national wealth](https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/living-standards-tumbling-in-australia-despite-booming-national-wealth,15747)\" and \"[Britons ‘need to accept’ they’re poorer, says Bank of England economist](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/apr/25/britons-need-to-accept-theyre-poorer-says-bank-of-england-economist)\".\n * Even if you blame external factors for these problems, such as the COVID-19 pandemic or the Russian invasion of Ukraine, these events prove to us the resilience of authoritarian systems in the PRC and Russia in contrast to liberal democracies, as declining living standards don't destabilise them as much.\n * The large-scale international resurgence of the far-right is [partially fed by legitimate concerns of economic insecurity](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/31/across-europe-the-far-right-is-rising-that-it-seems-normal-is-all-the-more-terrifying).\n\nTo conclude, while I believe that Fukuyama's concepts have been debunked by recent history, I can also understand why Fukuyama made such claims in the 1990s. Back then, he wouldn't have been able to foresee the problems that we're facing now.",
"date": "2023-11-24",
"id": "183a31j",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 292,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Francis Fukuyama's \"End of History\" has been proven wrong",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/183a31j/cmv_francis_fukuyamas_end_of_history_has_been/"
},
{
"author": "PorkfatWilly",
"body": "Problem was, the United states, after the fall of the Soviet Union, decided to continue on as if the Cold War never ended. They had pushed an agenda of world conquest ever since the end of the 2nd world war, because if the US didn’t rule the world, the evil commies would, but when that fever dream ended, instead of shifting gears, decreasing defense spending, accepting the fact that there was no boogeyman to protect the homeland from, they just kept on with the game, meddling, overthrowing, invading, occupying, in their quest to become world sovereign, leading to an easily foreseeable response from every country willing and able to resist the international rules based order’s demands",
"date": "2023-11-24",
"id": "kanjc5b",
"parent_id": "183a31j",
"score": -5,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
"body": "OK, but how does this CMV? I don't see anything in your theory that shows how Fukuyama's theory is still right.",
"date": "2023-11-24",
"id": "kankhya",
"parent_id": "kanjc5b",
"score": 7,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
"body": "This post is partially inspired by this news story: [Bin Laden's Letter to US Stuns Young Americans: 'He Was Right'](https://www.newsweek.com/bin-laden-letter-us-stuns-young-americans-he-was-right-1844234)\n\nFrancis Fukuyama is an American political scientist who wrote of the \"End of History\". This concept posits that with fascism and communism defeated, humanity will now gravitate towards a gradual universal adoption of capitalist liberal democracy. Fukuyama also claimed that the \"End of History\" will reduce conflicts between nations as the people concern themselves less with ideology and national identity, as increasing economic prosperity becomes the main concern and smooths over other concerns. Thanks to recent history, I think that such a concept is now laughable:\n\n* Regarding the news story about young Americans agreeing with Bin Laden, this goes to show that even within capitalist liberal democracies, this model is being undermined inconvenient truths, which are further spread by social media and influencers.\n * There is a lot of dirt to be dug up about capitalist liberal democracies (e.g. regime change operations, war crimes, atrocities against indigenous peoples). With the advent of the internet, these inconvenient truths are easier to find and therefore further weaken our nations through distrust, while more authoritarian countries can keep their dirt under wraps.\n * I'm not against truth and freedom of information, I'm just pointing out that the model that Fukuyama believed would triumph is actually quite fragile and easy to undermine.\n* [Democratic backsliding](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_backsliding) is occurring in many countries across the world, vastly overshadowing any progress in democratisation:\n * See [this report from 2020](https://web.archive.org/web/20210914030243/https://www.v-dem.net/media/filer_public/74/8c/748c68ad-f224-4cd7-87f9-8794add5c60f/dr_2021_updated.pdf) or [this report from 2022](https://web.archive.org/web/20230314164628/https://bti-project.org/en/reports/global-dashboard?&cb=00000).\n * There seems to be a perverse incentive to democratic backsliding, as increasing autocracy appears to be advantageous to leaders who intend to govern like a Paradox Interactive grand strategy game (i.e. to make their country even more powerful on the world stage).\n * Additionally, [multiple countries are experiencing a double whammy of democratic backsliding and political polarisation](https://carnegieendowment.org/2022/01/18/what-happens-when-democracies-become-perniciously-polarized-pub-86190), [which is also growing around the world](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/11/16/most-across-19-countries-see-strong-partisan-conflicts-in-their-society-especially-in-south-korea-and-the-u-s/).\n* Living standards in capitalist liberal democracies are decreasing, which sows doubt on the promises of capitalism and liberal democracy:\n * See \"[Living standards tumbling in Australia despite booming national wealth](https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/living-standards-tumbling-in-australia-despite-booming-national-wealth,15747)\" and \"[Britons ‘need to accept’ they’re poorer, says Bank of England economist](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/apr/25/britons-need-to-accept-theyre-poorer-says-bank-of-england-economist)\".\n * Even if you blame external factors for these problems, such as the COVID-19 pandemic or the Russian invasion of Ukraine, these events prove to us the resilience of authoritarian systems in the PRC and Russia in contrast to liberal democracies, as declining living standards don't destabilise them as much.\n * The large-scale international resurgence of the far-right is [partially fed by legitimate concerns of economic insecurity](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/31/across-europe-the-far-right-is-rising-that-it-seems-normal-is-all-the-more-terrifying).\n\nTo conclude, while I believe that Fukuyama's concepts have been debunked by recent history, I can also understand why Fukuyama made such claims in the 1990s. Back then, he wouldn't have been able to foresee the problems that we're facing now.",
"date": "2023-11-24",
"id": "183a31j",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 292,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Francis Fukuyama's \"End of History\" has been proven wrong",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/183a31j/cmv_francis_fukuyamas_end_of_history_has_been/"
},
{
"author": "-Dendritic-",
"body": "I don't have time to fully address your CMV right now (I will later) but have you read any of Fukuyama's more recent books since he wrote the end of history? The Origins of Political Order and Political Order and Political Decay are both great books imo, and a little more current",
"date": "2023-11-24",
"id": "kankxri",
"parent_id": "183a31j",
"score": 29,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
"body": "I haven't read *Political Order and Political Decay* yet, but judging by the synopsis on Wikipedia, it appears to agree with the points I outlined, while also contradicting the End of History, as it shows that even strong democracies like the USA can decay, and that this decay can hit Europe too.",
"date": "2023-11-24",
"id": "kanm89i",
"parent_id": "kankxri",
"score": 5,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
"body": "This post is partially inspired by this news story: [Bin Laden's Letter to US Stuns Young Americans: 'He Was Right'](https://www.newsweek.com/bin-laden-letter-us-stuns-young-americans-he-was-right-1844234)\n\nFrancis Fukuyama is an American political scientist who wrote of the \"End of History\". This concept posits that with fascism and communism defeated, humanity will now gravitate towards a gradual universal adoption of capitalist liberal democracy. Fukuyama also claimed that the \"End of History\" will reduce conflicts between nations as the people concern themselves less with ideology and national identity, as increasing economic prosperity becomes the main concern and smooths over other concerns. Thanks to recent history, I think that such a concept is now laughable:\n\n* Regarding the news story about young Americans agreeing with Bin Laden, this goes to show that even within capitalist liberal democracies, this model is being undermined inconvenient truths, which are further spread by social media and influencers.\n * There is a lot of dirt to be dug up about capitalist liberal democracies (e.g. regime change operations, war crimes, atrocities against indigenous peoples). With the advent of the internet, these inconvenient truths are easier to find and therefore further weaken our nations through distrust, while more authoritarian countries can keep their dirt under wraps.\n * I'm not against truth and freedom of information, I'm just pointing out that the model that Fukuyama believed would triumph is actually quite fragile and easy to undermine.\n* [Democratic backsliding](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_backsliding) is occurring in many countries across the world, vastly overshadowing any progress in democratisation:\n * See [this report from 2020](https://web.archive.org/web/20210914030243/https://www.v-dem.net/media/filer_public/74/8c/748c68ad-f224-4cd7-87f9-8794add5c60f/dr_2021_updated.pdf) or [this report from 2022](https://web.archive.org/web/20230314164628/https://bti-project.org/en/reports/global-dashboard?&cb=00000).\n * There seems to be a perverse incentive to democratic backsliding, as increasing autocracy appears to be advantageous to leaders who intend to govern like a Paradox Interactive grand strategy game (i.e. to make their country even more powerful on the world stage).\n * Additionally, [multiple countries are experiencing a double whammy of democratic backsliding and political polarisation](https://carnegieendowment.org/2022/01/18/what-happens-when-democracies-become-perniciously-polarized-pub-86190), [which is also growing around the world](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/11/16/most-across-19-countries-see-strong-partisan-conflicts-in-their-society-especially-in-south-korea-and-the-u-s/).\n* Living standards in capitalist liberal democracies are decreasing, which sows doubt on the promises of capitalism and liberal democracy:\n * See \"[Living standards tumbling in Australia despite booming national wealth](https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/living-standards-tumbling-in-australia-despite-booming-national-wealth,15747)\" and \"[Britons ‘need to accept’ they’re poorer, says Bank of England economist](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/apr/25/britons-need-to-accept-theyre-poorer-says-bank-of-england-economist)\".\n * Even if you blame external factors for these problems, such as the COVID-19 pandemic or the Russian invasion of Ukraine, these events prove to us the resilience of authoritarian systems in the PRC and Russia in contrast to liberal democracies, as declining living standards don't destabilise them as much.\n * The large-scale international resurgence of the far-right is [partially fed by legitimate concerns of economic insecurity](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/31/across-europe-the-far-right-is-rising-that-it-seems-normal-is-all-the-more-terrifying).\n\nTo conclude, while I believe that Fukuyama's concepts have been debunked by recent history, I can also understand why Fukuyama made such claims in the 1990s. Back then, he wouldn't have been able to foresee the problems that we're facing now.",
"date": "2023-11-24",
"id": "183a31j",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 292,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Francis Fukuyama's \"End of History\" has been proven wrong",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/183a31j/cmv_francis_fukuyamas_end_of_history_has_been/"
},
{
"author": "TedTyro",
"body": "I remember him being solidly debunked inthe early 2000s.",
"date": "2023-11-25",
"id": "kanwxf8",
"parent_id": "183a31j",
"score": 4,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "AbolishDisney",
"body": "Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
"date": "2023-11-25",
"id": "kaohmh3",
"parent_id": "kanwxf8",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
"body": "This post is partially inspired by this news story: [Bin Laden's Letter to US Stuns Young Americans: 'He Was Right'](https://www.newsweek.com/bin-laden-letter-us-stuns-young-americans-he-was-right-1844234)\n\nFrancis Fukuyama is an American political scientist who wrote of the \"End of History\". This concept posits that with fascism and communism defeated, humanity will now gravitate towards a gradual universal adoption of capitalist liberal democracy. Fukuyama also claimed that the \"End of History\" will reduce conflicts between nations as the people concern themselves less with ideology and national identity, as increasing economic prosperity becomes the main concern and smooths over other concerns. Thanks to recent history, I think that such a concept is now laughable:\n\n* Regarding the news story about young Americans agreeing with Bin Laden, this goes to show that even within capitalist liberal democracies, this model is being undermined inconvenient truths, which are further spread by social media and influencers.\n * There is a lot of dirt to be dug up about capitalist liberal democracies (e.g. regime change operations, war crimes, atrocities against indigenous peoples). With the advent of the internet, these inconvenient truths are easier to find and therefore further weaken our nations through distrust, while more authoritarian countries can keep their dirt under wraps.\n * I'm not against truth and freedom of information, I'm just pointing out that the model that Fukuyama believed would triumph is actually quite fragile and easy to undermine.\n* [Democratic backsliding](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_backsliding) is occurring in many countries across the world, vastly overshadowing any progress in democratisation:\n * See [this report from 2020](https://web.archive.org/web/20210914030243/https://www.v-dem.net/media/filer_public/74/8c/748c68ad-f224-4cd7-87f9-8794add5c60f/dr_2021_updated.pdf) or [this report from 2022](https://web.archive.org/web/20230314164628/https://bti-project.org/en/reports/global-dashboard?&cb=00000).\n * There seems to be a perverse incentive to democratic backsliding, as increasing autocracy appears to be advantageous to leaders who intend to govern like a Paradox Interactive grand strategy game (i.e. to make their country even more powerful on the world stage).\n * Additionally, [multiple countries are experiencing a double whammy of democratic backsliding and political polarisation](https://carnegieendowment.org/2022/01/18/what-happens-when-democracies-become-perniciously-polarized-pub-86190), [which is also growing around the world](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/11/16/most-across-19-countries-see-strong-partisan-conflicts-in-their-society-especially-in-south-korea-and-the-u-s/).\n* Living standards in capitalist liberal democracies are decreasing, which sows doubt on the promises of capitalism and liberal democracy:\n * See \"[Living standards tumbling in Australia despite booming national wealth](https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/living-standards-tumbling-in-australia-despite-booming-national-wealth,15747)\" and \"[Britons ‘need to accept’ they’re poorer, says Bank of England economist](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/apr/25/britons-need-to-accept-theyre-poorer-says-bank-of-england-economist)\".\n * Even if you blame external factors for these problems, such as the COVID-19 pandemic or the Russian invasion of Ukraine, these events prove to us the resilience of authoritarian systems in the PRC and Russia in contrast to liberal democracies, as declining living standards don't destabilise them as much.\n * The large-scale international resurgence of the far-right is [partially fed by legitimate concerns of economic insecurity](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/31/across-europe-the-far-right-is-rising-that-it-seems-normal-is-all-the-more-terrifying).\n\nTo conclude, while I believe that Fukuyama's concepts have been debunked by recent history, I can also understand why Fukuyama made such claims in the 1990s. Back then, he wouldn't have been able to foresee the problems that we're facing now.",
"date": "2023-11-24",
"id": "183a31j",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 292,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Francis Fukuyama's \"End of History\" has been proven wrong",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/183a31j/cmv_francis_fukuyamas_end_of_history_has_been/"
},
{
"author": "generic90sdude",
"body": "I thought that was proven long ago...",
"date": "2023-11-25",
"id": "kao2gfr",
"parent_id": "183a31j",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "AbolishDisney",
"body": "Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
"date": "2023-11-25",
"id": "kaoguww",
"parent_id": "kao2gfr",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
"body": "This post is partially inspired by this news story: [Bin Laden's Letter to US Stuns Young Americans: 'He Was Right'](https://www.newsweek.com/bin-laden-letter-us-stuns-young-americans-he-was-right-1844234)\n\nFrancis Fukuyama is an American political scientist who wrote of the \"End of History\". This concept posits that with fascism and communism defeated, humanity will now gravitate towards a gradual universal adoption of capitalist liberal democracy. Fukuyama also claimed that the \"End of History\" will reduce conflicts between nations as the people concern themselves less with ideology and national identity, as increasing economic prosperity becomes the main concern and smooths over other concerns. Thanks to recent history, I think that such a concept is now laughable:\n\n* Regarding the news story about young Americans agreeing with Bin Laden, this goes to show that even within capitalist liberal democracies, this model is being undermined inconvenient truths, which are further spread by social media and influencers.\n * There is a lot of dirt to be dug up about capitalist liberal democracies (e.g. regime change operations, war crimes, atrocities against indigenous peoples). With the advent of the internet, these inconvenient truths are easier to find and therefore further weaken our nations through distrust, while more authoritarian countries can keep their dirt under wraps.\n * I'm not against truth and freedom of information, I'm just pointing out that the model that Fukuyama believed would triumph is actually quite fragile and easy to undermine.\n* [Democratic backsliding](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_backsliding) is occurring in many countries across the world, vastly overshadowing any progress in democratisation:\n * See [this report from 2020](https://web.archive.org/web/20210914030243/https://www.v-dem.net/media/filer_public/74/8c/748c68ad-f224-4cd7-87f9-8794add5c60f/dr_2021_updated.pdf) or [this report from 2022](https://web.archive.org/web/20230314164628/https://bti-project.org/en/reports/global-dashboard?&cb=00000).\n * There seems to be a perverse incentive to democratic backsliding, as increasing autocracy appears to be advantageous to leaders who intend to govern like a Paradox Interactive grand strategy game (i.e. to make their country even more powerful on the world stage).\n * Additionally, [multiple countries are experiencing a double whammy of democratic backsliding and political polarisation](https://carnegieendowment.org/2022/01/18/what-happens-when-democracies-become-perniciously-polarized-pub-86190), [which is also growing around the world](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/11/16/most-across-19-countries-see-strong-partisan-conflicts-in-their-society-especially-in-south-korea-and-the-u-s/).\n* Living standards in capitalist liberal democracies are decreasing, which sows doubt on the promises of capitalism and liberal democracy:\n * See \"[Living standards tumbling in Australia despite booming national wealth](https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/living-standards-tumbling-in-australia-despite-booming-national-wealth,15747)\" and \"[Britons ‘need to accept’ they’re poorer, says Bank of England economist](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/apr/25/britons-need-to-accept-theyre-poorer-says-bank-of-england-economist)\".\n * Even if you blame external factors for these problems, such as the COVID-19 pandemic or the Russian invasion of Ukraine, these events prove to us the resilience of authoritarian systems in the PRC and Russia in contrast to liberal democracies, as declining living standards don't destabilise them as much.\n * The large-scale international resurgence of the far-right is [partially fed by legitimate concerns of economic insecurity](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/31/across-europe-the-far-right-is-rising-that-it-seems-normal-is-all-the-more-terrifying).\n\nTo conclude, while I believe that Fukuyama's concepts have been debunked by recent history, I can also understand why Fukuyama made such claims in the 1990s. Back then, he wouldn't have been able to foresee the problems that we're facing now.",
"date": "2023-11-24",
"id": "183a31j",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 292,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Francis Fukuyama's \"End of History\" has been proven wrong",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/183a31j/cmv_francis_fukuyamas_end_of_history_has_been/"
},
{
"author": "Druid___",
"body": "No one can predict the future.",
"date": "2023-11-25",
"id": "kao2h59",
"parent_id": "183a31j",
"score": -3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
"body": "This post is partially inspired by this news story: [Bin Laden's Letter to US Stuns Young Americans: 'He Was Right'](https://www.newsweek.com/bin-laden-letter-us-stuns-young-americans-he-was-right-1844234)\n\nFrancis Fukuyama is an American political scientist who wrote of the \"End of History\". This concept posits that with fascism and communism defeated, humanity will now gravitate towards a gradual universal adoption of capitalist liberal democracy. Fukuyama also claimed that the \"End of History\" will reduce conflicts between nations as the people concern themselves less with ideology and national identity, as increasing economic prosperity becomes the main concern and smooths over other concerns. Thanks to recent history, I think that such a concept is now laughable:\n\n* Regarding the news story about young Americans agreeing with Bin Laden, this goes to show that even within capitalist liberal democracies, this model is being undermined inconvenient truths, which are further spread by social media and influencers.\n * There is a lot of dirt to be dug up about capitalist liberal democracies (e.g. regime change operations, war crimes, atrocities against indigenous peoples). With the advent of the internet, these inconvenient truths are easier to find and therefore further weaken our nations through distrust, while more authoritarian countries can keep their dirt under wraps.\n * I'm not against truth and freedom of information, I'm just pointing out that the model that Fukuyama believed would triumph is actually quite fragile and easy to undermine.\n* [Democratic backsliding](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_backsliding) is occurring in many countries across the world, vastly overshadowing any progress in democratisation:\n * See [this report from 2020](https://web.archive.org/web/20210914030243/https://www.v-dem.net/media/filer_public/74/8c/748c68ad-f224-4cd7-87f9-8794add5c60f/dr_2021_updated.pdf) or [this report from 2022](https://web.archive.org/web/20230314164628/https://bti-project.org/en/reports/global-dashboard?&cb=00000).\n * There seems to be a perverse incentive to democratic backsliding, as increasing autocracy appears to be advantageous to leaders who intend to govern like a Paradox Interactive grand strategy game (i.e. to make their country even more powerful on the world stage).\n * Additionally, [multiple countries are experiencing a double whammy of democratic backsliding and political polarisation](https://carnegieendowment.org/2022/01/18/what-happens-when-democracies-become-perniciously-polarized-pub-86190), [which is also growing around the world](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/11/16/most-across-19-countries-see-strong-partisan-conflicts-in-their-society-especially-in-south-korea-and-the-u-s/).\n* Living standards in capitalist liberal democracies are decreasing, which sows doubt on the promises of capitalism and liberal democracy:\n * See \"[Living standards tumbling in Australia despite booming national wealth](https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/living-standards-tumbling-in-australia-despite-booming-national-wealth,15747)\" and \"[Britons ‘need to accept’ they’re poorer, says Bank of England economist](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/apr/25/britons-need-to-accept-theyre-poorer-says-bank-of-england-economist)\".\n * Even if you blame external factors for these problems, such as the COVID-19 pandemic or the Russian invasion of Ukraine, these events prove to us the resilience of authoritarian systems in the PRC and Russia in contrast to liberal democracies, as declining living standards don't destabilise them as much.\n * The large-scale international resurgence of the far-right is [partially fed by legitimate concerns of economic insecurity](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/31/across-europe-the-far-right-is-rising-that-it-seems-normal-is-all-the-more-terrifying).\n\nTo conclude, while I believe that Fukuyama's concepts have been debunked by recent history, I can also understand why Fukuyama made such claims in the 1990s. Back then, he wouldn't have been able to foresee the problems that we're facing now.",
"date": "2023-11-24",
"id": "183a31j",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 292,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Francis Fukuyama's \"End of History\" has been proven wrong",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/183a31j/cmv_francis_fukuyamas_end_of_history_has_been/"
},
{
"author": "4thofeleven",
"body": "Even Fukuyama himself has stepped back from the stronger claims he made back in the 90s - I don't think anyone in political science really takes his thesis that seriously anymore. \n\nIn particular, China's pretty much demonstrated that economic liberalization doesn't neccisarily lead to political liberalization, their government has successfully opened up their markets to compete with the West without relinquishing any of their hold over power. It makes the whole inevitable rise of a liberal global order look a lot shakier.",
"date": "2023-11-25",
"id": "kaodik5",
"parent_id": "183a31j",
"score": 15,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Razmorg",
"body": "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End\\_of\\_history](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End_of_history) \n\nIt's hard for me not to think he just saw an opening to repeat this tired meme which only gains credibility at certain peaks. Not hard to paint liberal democracy as a winner moments after their arch enemy just popped dead. Seems to have worked out good for him because from what I can see that statement seems to be what he's most famous for so he gobbled up that spot good.",
"date": "2023-11-25",
"id": "kar8kxt",
"parent_id": "kaodik5",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
"body": "This post is partially inspired by this news story: [Bin Laden's Letter to US Stuns Young Americans: 'He Was Right'](https://www.newsweek.com/bin-laden-letter-us-stuns-young-americans-he-was-right-1844234)\n\nFrancis Fukuyama is an American political scientist who wrote of the \"End of History\". This concept posits that with fascism and communism defeated, humanity will now gravitate towards a gradual universal adoption of capitalist liberal democracy. Fukuyama also claimed that the \"End of History\" will reduce conflicts between nations as the people concern themselves less with ideology and national identity, as increasing economic prosperity becomes the main concern and smooths over other concerns. Thanks to recent history, I think that such a concept is now laughable:\n\n* Regarding the news story about young Americans agreeing with Bin Laden, this goes to show that even within capitalist liberal democracies, this model is being undermined inconvenient truths, which are further spread by social media and influencers.\n * There is a lot of dirt to be dug up about capitalist liberal democracies (e.g. regime change operations, war crimes, atrocities against indigenous peoples). With the advent of the internet, these inconvenient truths are easier to find and therefore further weaken our nations through distrust, while more authoritarian countries can keep their dirt under wraps.\n * I'm not against truth and freedom of information, I'm just pointing out that the model that Fukuyama believed would triumph is actually quite fragile and easy to undermine.\n* [Democratic backsliding](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_backsliding) is occurring in many countries across the world, vastly overshadowing any progress in democratisation:\n * See [this report from 2020](https://web.archive.org/web/20210914030243/https://www.v-dem.net/media/filer_public/74/8c/748c68ad-f224-4cd7-87f9-8794add5c60f/dr_2021_updated.pdf) or [this report from 2022](https://web.archive.org/web/20230314164628/https://bti-project.org/en/reports/global-dashboard?&cb=00000).\n * There seems to be a perverse incentive to democratic backsliding, as increasing autocracy appears to be advantageous to leaders who intend to govern like a Paradox Interactive grand strategy game (i.e. to make their country even more powerful on the world stage).\n * Additionally, [multiple countries are experiencing a double whammy of democratic backsliding and political polarisation](https://carnegieendowment.org/2022/01/18/what-happens-when-democracies-become-perniciously-polarized-pub-86190), [which is also growing around the world](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/11/16/most-across-19-countries-see-strong-partisan-conflicts-in-their-society-especially-in-south-korea-and-the-u-s/).\n* Living standards in capitalist liberal democracies are decreasing, which sows doubt on the promises of capitalism and liberal democracy:\n * See \"[Living standards tumbling in Australia despite booming national wealth](https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/living-standards-tumbling-in-australia-despite-booming-national-wealth,15747)\" and \"[Britons ‘need to accept’ they’re poorer, says Bank of England economist](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/apr/25/britons-need-to-accept-theyre-poorer-says-bank-of-england-economist)\".\n * Even if you blame external factors for these problems, such as the COVID-19 pandemic or the Russian invasion of Ukraine, these events prove to us the resilience of authoritarian systems in the PRC and Russia in contrast to liberal democracies, as declining living standards don't destabilise them as much.\n * The large-scale international resurgence of the far-right is [partially fed by legitimate concerns of economic insecurity](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/31/across-europe-the-far-right-is-rising-that-it-seems-normal-is-all-the-more-terrifying).\n\nTo conclude, while I believe that Fukuyama's concepts have been debunked by recent history, I can also understand why Fukuyama made such claims in the 1990s. Back then, he wouldn't have been able to foresee the problems that we're facing now.",
"date": "2023-11-24",
"id": "183a31j",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 292,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Francis Fukuyama's \"End of History\" has been proven wrong",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/183a31j/cmv_francis_fukuyamas_end_of_history_has_been/"
},
{
"author": "Born-Situation-9793",
"body": "Bin laden was a freedom fighter who did an act of decolonisation.",
"date": "2023-11-25",
"id": "kaofmqo",
"parent_id": "183a31j",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "AbolishDisney",
"body": "Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
"date": "2023-11-25",
"id": "kaogsu9",
"parent_id": "kaofmqo",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
"body": "This post is partially inspired by this news story: [Bin Laden's Letter to US Stuns Young Americans: 'He Was Right'](https://www.newsweek.com/bin-laden-letter-us-stuns-young-americans-he-was-right-1844234)\n\nFrancis Fukuyama is an American political scientist who wrote of the \"End of History\". This concept posits that with fascism and communism defeated, humanity will now gravitate towards a gradual universal adoption of capitalist liberal democracy. Fukuyama also claimed that the \"End of History\" will reduce conflicts between nations as the people concern themselves less with ideology and national identity, as increasing economic prosperity becomes the main concern and smooths over other concerns. Thanks to recent history, I think that such a concept is now laughable:\n\n* Regarding the news story about young Americans agreeing with Bin Laden, this goes to show that even within capitalist liberal democracies, this model is being undermined inconvenient truths, which are further spread by social media and influencers.\n * There is a lot of dirt to be dug up about capitalist liberal democracies (e.g. regime change operations, war crimes, atrocities against indigenous peoples). With the advent of the internet, these inconvenient truths are easier to find and therefore further weaken our nations through distrust, while more authoritarian countries can keep their dirt under wraps.\n * I'm not against truth and freedom of information, I'm just pointing out that the model that Fukuyama believed would triumph is actually quite fragile and easy to undermine.\n* [Democratic backsliding](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_backsliding) is occurring in many countries across the world, vastly overshadowing any progress in democratisation:\n * See [this report from 2020](https://web.archive.org/web/20210914030243/https://www.v-dem.net/media/filer_public/74/8c/748c68ad-f224-4cd7-87f9-8794add5c60f/dr_2021_updated.pdf) or [this report from 2022](https://web.archive.org/web/20230314164628/https://bti-project.org/en/reports/global-dashboard?&cb=00000).\n * There seems to be a perverse incentive to democratic backsliding, as increasing autocracy appears to be advantageous to leaders who intend to govern like a Paradox Interactive grand strategy game (i.e. to make their country even more powerful on the world stage).\n * Additionally, [multiple countries are experiencing a double whammy of democratic backsliding and political polarisation](https://carnegieendowment.org/2022/01/18/what-happens-when-democracies-become-perniciously-polarized-pub-86190), [which is also growing around the world](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/11/16/most-across-19-countries-see-strong-partisan-conflicts-in-their-society-especially-in-south-korea-and-the-u-s/).\n* Living standards in capitalist liberal democracies are decreasing, which sows doubt on the promises of capitalism and liberal democracy:\n * See \"[Living standards tumbling in Australia despite booming national wealth](https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/living-standards-tumbling-in-australia-despite-booming-national-wealth,15747)\" and \"[Britons ‘need to accept’ they’re poorer, says Bank of England economist](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/apr/25/britons-need-to-accept-theyre-poorer-says-bank-of-england-economist)\".\n * Even if you blame external factors for these problems, such as the COVID-19 pandemic or the Russian invasion of Ukraine, these events prove to us the resilience of authoritarian systems in the PRC and Russia in contrast to liberal democracies, as declining living standards don't destabilise them as much.\n * The large-scale international resurgence of the far-right is [partially fed by legitimate concerns of economic insecurity](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/31/across-europe-the-far-right-is-rising-that-it-seems-normal-is-all-the-more-terrifying).\n\nTo conclude, while I believe that Fukuyama's concepts have been debunked by recent history, I can also understand why Fukuyama made such claims in the 1990s. Back then, he wouldn't have been able to foresee the problems that we're facing now.",
"date": "2023-11-24",
"id": "183a31j",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 292,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Francis Fukuyama's \"End of History\" has been proven wrong",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/183a31j/cmv_francis_fukuyamas_end_of_history_has_been/"
},
{
"author": "Sufficient-Lemon-805",
"body": "There are criticisms of this concept, but you fundamentally misunderstand it. Mr. Fukuyama acknowledges the possibility of backsliding, but believes that liberal democracy is the ultimate end point, and that while communism and fascism function as modern forms of government that go beyond liberal democracy, they ultimately We only accept that we cannot meet the needs of people. When Fukuyama talks about history, he means history as a struggle over the development of the best way of life for people, and that the endpoint of this struggle has already been found, whether people accept it or not. he insists.",
"date": "2023-11-25",
"id": "kap4b2a",
"parent_id": "183a31j",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
"body": "This post is partially inspired by this news story: [Bin Laden's Letter to US Stuns Young Americans: 'He Was Right'](https://www.newsweek.com/bin-laden-letter-us-stuns-young-americans-he-was-right-1844234)\n\nFrancis Fukuyama is an American political scientist who wrote of the \"End of History\". This concept posits that with fascism and communism defeated, humanity will now gravitate towards a gradual universal adoption of capitalist liberal democracy. Fukuyama also claimed that the \"End of History\" will reduce conflicts between nations as the people concern themselves less with ideology and national identity, as increasing economic prosperity becomes the main concern and smooths over other concerns. Thanks to recent history, I think that such a concept is now laughable:\n\n* Regarding the news story about young Americans agreeing with Bin Laden, this goes to show that even within capitalist liberal democracies, this model is being undermined inconvenient truths, which are further spread by social media and influencers.\n * There is a lot of dirt to be dug up about capitalist liberal democracies (e.g. regime change operations, war crimes, atrocities against indigenous peoples). With the advent of the internet, these inconvenient truths are easier to find and therefore further weaken our nations through distrust, while more authoritarian countries can keep their dirt under wraps.\n * I'm not against truth and freedom of information, I'm just pointing out that the model that Fukuyama believed would triumph is actually quite fragile and easy to undermine.\n* [Democratic backsliding](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_backsliding) is occurring in many countries across the world, vastly overshadowing any progress in democratisation:\n * See [this report from 2020](https://web.archive.org/web/20210914030243/https://www.v-dem.net/media/filer_public/74/8c/748c68ad-f224-4cd7-87f9-8794add5c60f/dr_2021_updated.pdf) or [this report from 2022](https://web.archive.org/web/20230314164628/https://bti-project.org/en/reports/global-dashboard?&cb=00000).\n * There seems to be a perverse incentive to democratic backsliding, as increasing autocracy appears to be advantageous to leaders who intend to govern like a Paradox Interactive grand strategy game (i.e. to make their country even more powerful on the world stage).\n * Additionally, [multiple countries are experiencing a double whammy of democratic backsliding and political polarisation](https://carnegieendowment.org/2022/01/18/what-happens-when-democracies-become-perniciously-polarized-pub-86190), [which is also growing around the world](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/11/16/most-across-19-countries-see-strong-partisan-conflicts-in-their-society-especially-in-south-korea-and-the-u-s/).\n* Living standards in capitalist liberal democracies are decreasing, which sows doubt on the promises of capitalism and liberal democracy:\n * See \"[Living standards tumbling in Australia despite booming national wealth](https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/living-standards-tumbling-in-australia-despite-booming-national-wealth,15747)\" and \"[Britons ‘need to accept’ they’re poorer, says Bank of England economist](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/apr/25/britons-need-to-accept-theyre-poorer-says-bank-of-england-economist)\".\n * Even if you blame external factors for these problems, such as the COVID-19 pandemic or the Russian invasion of Ukraine, these events prove to us the resilience of authoritarian systems in the PRC and Russia in contrast to liberal democracies, as declining living standards don't destabilise them as much.\n * The large-scale international resurgence of the far-right is [partially fed by legitimate concerns of economic insecurity](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/31/across-europe-the-far-right-is-rising-that-it-seems-normal-is-all-the-more-terrifying).\n\nTo conclude, while I believe that Fukuyama's concepts have been debunked by recent history, I can also understand why Fukuyama made such claims in the 1990s. Back then, he wouldn't have been able to foresee the problems that we're facing now.",
"date": "2023-11-24",
"id": "183a31j",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 292,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Francis Fukuyama's \"End of History\" has been proven wrong",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/183a31j/cmv_francis_fukuyamas_end_of_history_has_been/"
},
{
"author": "Marmar79",
"body": "‘The Return of History’ by Jennifer Welsh is a must read. She wrote it between 2013 and 2016 completely nails the world we are living in right now.",
"date": "2023-11-25",
"id": "kap8rod",
"parent_id": "183a31j",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
"body": "OK, thanks, I will check out that book.",
"date": "2023-11-28",
"id": "kb5y0m1",
"parent_id": "kap8rod",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
"body": "This post is partially inspired by this news story: [Bin Laden's Letter to US Stuns Young Americans: 'He Was Right'](https://www.newsweek.com/bin-laden-letter-us-stuns-young-americans-he-was-right-1844234)\n\nFrancis Fukuyama is an American political scientist who wrote of the \"End of History\". This concept posits that with fascism and communism defeated, humanity will now gravitate towards a gradual universal adoption of capitalist liberal democracy. Fukuyama also claimed that the \"End of History\" will reduce conflicts between nations as the people concern themselves less with ideology and national identity, as increasing economic prosperity becomes the main concern and smooths over other concerns. Thanks to recent history, I think that such a concept is now laughable:\n\n* Regarding the news story about young Americans agreeing with Bin Laden, this goes to show that even within capitalist liberal democracies, this model is being undermined inconvenient truths, which are further spread by social media and influencers.\n * There is a lot of dirt to be dug up about capitalist liberal democracies (e.g. regime change operations, war crimes, atrocities against indigenous peoples). With the advent of the internet, these inconvenient truths are easier to find and therefore further weaken our nations through distrust, while more authoritarian countries can keep their dirt under wraps.\n * I'm not against truth and freedom of information, I'm just pointing out that the model that Fukuyama believed would triumph is actually quite fragile and easy to undermine.\n* [Democratic backsliding](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_backsliding) is occurring in many countries across the world, vastly overshadowing any progress in democratisation:\n * See [this report from 2020](https://web.archive.org/web/20210914030243/https://www.v-dem.net/media/filer_public/74/8c/748c68ad-f224-4cd7-87f9-8794add5c60f/dr_2021_updated.pdf) or [this report from 2022](https://web.archive.org/web/20230314164628/https://bti-project.org/en/reports/global-dashboard?&cb=00000).\n * There seems to be a perverse incentive to democratic backsliding, as increasing autocracy appears to be advantageous to leaders who intend to govern like a Paradox Interactive grand strategy game (i.e. to make their country even more powerful on the world stage).\n * Additionally, [multiple countries are experiencing a double whammy of democratic backsliding and political polarisation](https://carnegieendowment.org/2022/01/18/what-happens-when-democracies-become-perniciously-polarized-pub-86190), [which is also growing around the world](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/11/16/most-across-19-countries-see-strong-partisan-conflicts-in-their-society-especially-in-south-korea-and-the-u-s/).\n* Living standards in capitalist liberal democracies are decreasing, which sows doubt on the promises of capitalism and liberal democracy:\n * See \"[Living standards tumbling in Australia despite booming national wealth](https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/living-standards-tumbling-in-australia-despite-booming-national-wealth,15747)\" and \"[Britons ‘need to accept’ they’re poorer, says Bank of England economist](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/apr/25/britons-need-to-accept-theyre-poorer-says-bank-of-england-economist)\".\n * Even if you blame external factors for these problems, such as the COVID-19 pandemic or the Russian invasion of Ukraine, these events prove to us the resilience of authoritarian systems in the PRC and Russia in contrast to liberal democracies, as declining living standards don't destabilise them as much.\n * The large-scale international resurgence of the far-right is [partially fed by legitimate concerns of economic insecurity](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/31/across-europe-the-far-right-is-rising-that-it-seems-normal-is-all-the-more-terrifying).\n\nTo conclude, while I believe that Fukuyama's concepts have been debunked by recent history, I can also understand why Fukuyama made such claims in the 1990s. Back then, he wouldn't have been able to foresee the problems that we're facing now.",
"date": "2023-11-24",
"id": "183a31j",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 292,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Francis Fukuyama's \"End of History\" has been proven wrong",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/183a31j/cmv_francis_fukuyamas_end_of_history_has_been/"
},
{
"author": "Effective_Opposite12",
"body": "In my personal opinion Fukuyama is a total hack so take this with a grain of salt. \n\n\nFirst of all, there is no wave of people suddenly liking Bin Laden, this is completely made up. You can check for yourself by searching for the alleged Bin Laden praising videos. \n\nSecondly I don’t agree with the Premise of „Liberal Capitalism is universal and dominating, so it must be a kind of natural convergence point“. This ignores the decades of Propaganda and Suppression many governments and powerful people employed to make it so because it directly benefits them and also ignores so many countries where this was far from the norm until colonialism happened to them. Many countries experienced significant regression in social norms after they adopted the neoliberal MO, for example many countries in Africa, where progressive social norms like the acceptance of LGBTQ people was already normalized (something we struggle with hard today) and only ceased to exist after meddling by the Catholic Church. Most of the historical writings by European settlers concerning this takeover are deliberately written to make it seem the African people were already like this „naturally“ when in reality it was brutally enforced. \n\nFukuyama makes the same mistake many „pop historians“ with controversial takes make: assuming most of these developments aren’t in some way directed and controlled but naturally emerging. In a time where we already know about stuff like Cointelpro this argument simply falls flat for me.",
"date": "2023-11-25",
"id": "kap8v2b",
"parent_id": "183a31j",
"score": 4,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "daddicus_thiccman",
"body": "Fukuyama wasn’t a “pop historian”, you have the same critiques of those who literally judged a book by its cover and did not read it. \n\nFascism and communism didn’t fail because capitalism “undermined them” (which would also prove Fukuyama’s point) but rather because they did not provide for the needs or desires of their populations.",
"date": "2023-11-25",
"id": "kaqvsf2",
"parent_id": "kap8v2b",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
"body": "This post is partially inspired by this news story: [Bin Laden's Letter to US Stuns Young Americans: 'He Was Right'](https://www.newsweek.com/bin-laden-letter-us-stuns-young-americans-he-was-right-1844234)\n\nFrancis Fukuyama is an American political scientist who wrote of the \"End of History\". This concept posits that with fascism and communism defeated, humanity will now gravitate towards a gradual universal adoption of capitalist liberal democracy. Fukuyama also claimed that the \"End of History\" will reduce conflicts between nations as the people concern themselves less with ideology and national identity, as increasing economic prosperity becomes the main concern and smooths over other concerns. Thanks to recent history, I think that such a concept is now laughable:\n\n* Regarding the news story about young Americans agreeing with Bin Laden, this goes to show that even within capitalist liberal democracies, this model is being undermined inconvenient truths, which are further spread by social media and influencers.\n * There is a lot of dirt to be dug up about capitalist liberal democracies (e.g. regime change operations, war crimes, atrocities against indigenous peoples). With the advent of the internet, these inconvenient truths are easier to find and therefore further weaken our nations through distrust, while more authoritarian countries can keep their dirt under wraps.\n * I'm not against truth and freedom of information, I'm just pointing out that the model that Fukuyama believed would triumph is actually quite fragile and easy to undermine.\n* [Democratic backsliding](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_backsliding) is occurring in many countries across the world, vastly overshadowing any progress in democratisation:\n * See [this report from 2020](https://web.archive.org/web/20210914030243/https://www.v-dem.net/media/filer_public/74/8c/748c68ad-f224-4cd7-87f9-8794add5c60f/dr_2021_updated.pdf) or [this report from 2022](https://web.archive.org/web/20230314164628/https://bti-project.org/en/reports/global-dashboard?&cb=00000).\n * There seems to be a perverse incentive to democratic backsliding, as increasing autocracy appears to be advantageous to leaders who intend to govern like a Paradox Interactive grand strategy game (i.e. to make their country even more powerful on the world stage).\n * Additionally, [multiple countries are experiencing a double whammy of democratic backsliding and political polarisation](https://carnegieendowment.org/2022/01/18/what-happens-when-democracies-become-perniciously-polarized-pub-86190), [which is also growing around the world](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/11/16/most-across-19-countries-see-strong-partisan-conflicts-in-their-society-especially-in-south-korea-and-the-u-s/).\n* Living standards in capitalist liberal democracies are decreasing, which sows doubt on the promises of capitalism and liberal democracy:\n * See \"[Living standards tumbling in Australia despite booming national wealth](https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/living-standards-tumbling-in-australia-despite-booming-national-wealth,15747)\" and \"[Britons ‘need to accept’ they’re poorer, says Bank of England economist](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/apr/25/britons-need-to-accept-theyre-poorer-says-bank-of-england-economist)\".\n * Even if you blame external factors for these problems, such as the COVID-19 pandemic or the Russian invasion of Ukraine, these events prove to us the resilience of authoritarian systems in the PRC and Russia in contrast to liberal democracies, as declining living standards don't destabilise them as much.\n * The large-scale international resurgence of the far-right is [partially fed by legitimate concerns of economic insecurity](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/31/across-europe-the-far-right-is-rising-that-it-seems-normal-is-all-the-more-terrifying).\n\nTo conclude, while I believe that Fukuyama's concepts have been debunked by recent history, I can also understand why Fukuyama made such claims in the 1990s. Back then, he wouldn't have been able to foresee the problems that we're facing now.",
"date": "2023-11-24",
"id": "183a31j",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 292,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Francis Fukuyama's \"End of History\" has been proven wrong",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/183a31j/cmv_francis_fukuyamas_end_of_history_has_been/"
},
{
"author": "Uncle_Touchy1987",
"body": "Despite some bumps in the road, I think Steven Pinker’s work would shed some light on the core idea and may change your view.",
"date": "2023-11-25",
"id": "kap9s1t",
"parent_id": "183a31j",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
"body": "This post is partially inspired by this news story: [Bin Laden's Letter to US Stuns Young Americans: 'He Was Right'](https://www.newsweek.com/bin-laden-letter-us-stuns-young-americans-he-was-right-1844234)\n\nFrancis Fukuyama is an American political scientist who wrote of the \"End of History\". This concept posits that with fascism and communism defeated, humanity will now gravitate towards a gradual universal adoption of capitalist liberal democracy. Fukuyama also claimed that the \"End of History\" will reduce conflicts between nations as the people concern themselves less with ideology and national identity, as increasing economic prosperity becomes the main concern and smooths over other concerns. Thanks to recent history, I think that such a concept is now laughable:\n\n* Regarding the news story about young Americans agreeing with Bin Laden, this goes to show that even within capitalist liberal democracies, this model is being undermined inconvenient truths, which are further spread by social media and influencers.\n * There is a lot of dirt to be dug up about capitalist liberal democracies (e.g. regime change operations, war crimes, atrocities against indigenous peoples). With the advent of the internet, these inconvenient truths are easier to find and therefore further weaken our nations through distrust, while more authoritarian countries can keep their dirt under wraps.\n * I'm not against truth and freedom of information, I'm just pointing out that the model that Fukuyama believed would triumph is actually quite fragile and easy to undermine.\n* [Democratic backsliding](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_backsliding) is occurring in many countries across the world, vastly overshadowing any progress in democratisation:\n * See [this report from 2020](https://web.archive.org/web/20210914030243/https://www.v-dem.net/media/filer_public/74/8c/748c68ad-f224-4cd7-87f9-8794add5c60f/dr_2021_updated.pdf) or [this report from 2022](https://web.archive.org/web/20230314164628/https://bti-project.org/en/reports/global-dashboard?&cb=00000).\n * There seems to be a perverse incentive to democratic backsliding, as increasing autocracy appears to be advantageous to leaders who intend to govern like a Paradox Interactive grand strategy game (i.e. to make their country even more powerful on the world stage).\n * Additionally, [multiple countries are experiencing a double whammy of democratic backsliding and political polarisation](https://carnegieendowment.org/2022/01/18/what-happens-when-democracies-become-perniciously-polarized-pub-86190), [which is also growing around the world](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/11/16/most-across-19-countries-see-strong-partisan-conflicts-in-their-society-especially-in-south-korea-and-the-u-s/).\n* Living standards in capitalist liberal democracies are decreasing, which sows doubt on the promises of capitalism and liberal democracy:\n * See \"[Living standards tumbling in Australia despite booming national wealth](https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/living-standards-tumbling-in-australia-despite-booming-national-wealth,15747)\" and \"[Britons ‘need to accept’ they’re poorer, says Bank of England economist](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/apr/25/britons-need-to-accept-theyre-poorer-says-bank-of-england-economist)\".\n * Even if you blame external factors for these problems, such as the COVID-19 pandemic or the Russian invasion of Ukraine, these events prove to us the resilience of authoritarian systems in the PRC and Russia in contrast to liberal democracies, as declining living standards don't destabilise them as much.\n * The large-scale international resurgence of the far-right is [partially fed by legitimate concerns of economic insecurity](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/31/across-europe-the-far-right-is-rising-that-it-seems-normal-is-all-the-more-terrifying).\n\nTo conclude, while I believe that Fukuyama's concepts have been debunked by recent history, I can also understand why Fukuyama made such claims in the 1990s. Back then, he wouldn't have been able to foresee the problems that we're facing now.",
"date": "2023-11-24",
"id": "183a31j",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 292,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Francis Fukuyama's \"End of History\" has been proven wrong",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/183a31j/cmv_francis_fukuyamas_end_of_history_has_been/"
},
{
"author": "Yogghee",
"body": "Not \"proven\" wrong. Regardless of your political or ideological affiliation the MASSIVE apparatus of progressive recidivism and social manipulation in *universally* recognized and it's entrenchment and reach cannot be overstated. If somehow humanity could harness the new tools of communication and use them for things like communication and democracy What would \"come to be\" and what is actually allowed to manifest by the powers that be would be dramatic.",
"date": "2023-11-25",
"id": "kapb2yq",
"parent_id": "183a31j",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
"body": "This post is partially inspired by this news story: [Bin Laden's Letter to US Stuns Young Americans: 'He Was Right'](https://www.newsweek.com/bin-laden-letter-us-stuns-young-americans-he-was-right-1844234)\n\nFrancis Fukuyama is an American political scientist who wrote of the \"End of History\". This concept posits that with fascism and communism defeated, humanity will now gravitate towards a gradual universal adoption of capitalist liberal democracy. Fukuyama also claimed that the \"End of History\" will reduce conflicts between nations as the people concern themselves less with ideology and national identity, as increasing economic prosperity becomes the main concern and smooths over other concerns. Thanks to recent history, I think that such a concept is now laughable:\n\n* Regarding the news story about young Americans agreeing with Bin Laden, this goes to show that even within capitalist liberal democracies, this model is being undermined inconvenient truths, which are further spread by social media and influencers.\n * There is a lot of dirt to be dug up about capitalist liberal democracies (e.g. regime change operations, war crimes, atrocities against indigenous peoples). With the advent of the internet, these inconvenient truths are easier to find and therefore further weaken our nations through distrust, while more authoritarian countries can keep their dirt under wraps.\n * I'm not against truth and freedom of information, I'm just pointing out that the model that Fukuyama believed would triumph is actually quite fragile and easy to undermine.\n* [Democratic backsliding](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_backsliding) is occurring in many countries across the world, vastly overshadowing any progress in democratisation:\n * See [this report from 2020](https://web.archive.org/web/20210914030243/https://www.v-dem.net/media/filer_public/74/8c/748c68ad-f224-4cd7-87f9-8794add5c60f/dr_2021_updated.pdf) or [this report from 2022](https://web.archive.org/web/20230314164628/https://bti-project.org/en/reports/global-dashboard?&cb=00000).\n * There seems to be a perverse incentive to democratic backsliding, as increasing autocracy appears to be advantageous to leaders who intend to govern like a Paradox Interactive grand strategy game (i.e. to make their country even more powerful on the world stage).\n * Additionally, [multiple countries are experiencing a double whammy of democratic backsliding and political polarisation](https://carnegieendowment.org/2022/01/18/what-happens-when-democracies-become-perniciously-polarized-pub-86190), [which is also growing around the world](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/11/16/most-across-19-countries-see-strong-partisan-conflicts-in-their-society-especially-in-south-korea-and-the-u-s/).\n* Living standards in capitalist liberal democracies are decreasing, which sows doubt on the promises of capitalism and liberal democracy:\n * See \"[Living standards tumbling in Australia despite booming national wealth](https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/living-standards-tumbling-in-australia-despite-booming-national-wealth,15747)\" and \"[Britons ‘need to accept’ they’re poorer, says Bank of England economist](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/apr/25/britons-need-to-accept-theyre-poorer-says-bank-of-england-economist)\".\n * Even if you blame external factors for these problems, such as the COVID-19 pandemic or the Russian invasion of Ukraine, these events prove to us the resilience of authoritarian systems in the PRC and Russia in contrast to liberal democracies, as declining living standards don't destabilise them as much.\n * The large-scale international resurgence of the far-right is [partially fed by legitimate concerns of economic insecurity](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/31/across-europe-the-far-right-is-rising-that-it-seems-normal-is-all-the-more-terrifying).\n\nTo conclude, while I believe that Fukuyama's concepts have been debunked by recent history, I can also understand why Fukuyama made such claims in the 1990s. Back then, he wouldn't have been able to foresee the problems that we're facing now.",
"date": "2023-11-24",
"id": "183a31j",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 292,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Francis Fukuyama's \"End of History\" has been proven wrong",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/183a31j/cmv_francis_fukuyamas_end_of_history_has_been/"
},
{
"author": "arjensmit",
"body": "\"The end of history\". This titel and the thoughts behind it are so cringeworthy. \n\nIt shows of an extremely biased and narrow world view. All inspired on the capitalism vs communism tunnel vission. He basically states \"we won, this is it, this is perfection\". \n\nOf course humanity and our social systems keep evolving. There is no end of history. There is no ultimate winner, there is no perfect system. There is just a winner in this moment in time, until we evolve to something new and better. \n\nBetter than the liberal democracy we have now. What will that be ? Who knows, maybe something with AI, maybe something with all humans having their brain plugged in to the matrix and all of us being a part of a much bigger neural netwerk. Future will tell. \n\n\nIt surprises me this guy can be taken so seriously.",
"date": "2023-11-25",
"id": "kaphqli",
"parent_id": "183a31j",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "daddicus_thiccman",
"body": "He is taken seriously by people that actually read the book and did not literally judge it by its cover. It does not say what you think it says.",
"date": "2023-11-25",
"id": "kaqwdpp",
"parent_id": "kaphqli",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
"body": "This post is partially inspired by this news story: [Bin Laden's Letter to US Stuns Young Americans: 'He Was Right'](https://www.newsweek.com/bin-laden-letter-us-stuns-young-americans-he-was-right-1844234)\n\nFrancis Fukuyama is an American political scientist who wrote of the \"End of History\". This concept posits that with fascism and communism defeated, humanity will now gravitate towards a gradual universal adoption of capitalist liberal democracy. Fukuyama also claimed that the \"End of History\" will reduce conflicts between nations as the people concern themselves less with ideology and national identity, as increasing economic prosperity becomes the main concern and smooths over other concerns. Thanks to recent history, I think that such a concept is now laughable:\n\n* Regarding the news story about young Americans agreeing with Bin Laden, this goes to show that even within capitalist liberal democracies, this model is being undermined inconvenient truths, which are further spread by social media and influencers.\n * There is a lot of dirt to be dug up about capitalist liberal democracies (e.g. regime change operations, war crimes, atrocities against indigenous peoples). With the advent of the internet, these inconvenient truths are easier to find and therefore further weaken our nations through distrust, while more authoritarian countries can keep their dirt under wraps.\n * I'm not against truth and freedom of information, I'm just pointing out that the model that Fukuyama believed would triumph is actually quite fragile and easy to undermine.\n* [Democratic backsliding](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_backsliding) is occurring in many countries across the world, vastly overshadowing any progress in democratisation:\n * See [this report from 2020](https://web.archive.org/web/20210914030243/https://www.v-dem.net/media/filer_public/74/8c/748c68ad-f224-4cd7-87f9-8794add5c60f/dr_2021_updated.pdf) or [this report from 2022](https://web.archive.org/web/20230314164628/https://bti-project.org/en/reports/global-dashboard?&cb=00000).\n * There seems to be a perverse incentive to democratic backsliding, as increasing autocracy appears to be advantageous to leaders who intend to govern like a Paradox Interactive grand strategy game (i.e. to make their country even more powerful on the world stage).\n * Additionally, [multiple countries are experiencing a double whammy of democratic backsliding and political polarisation](https://carnegieendowment.org/2022/01/18/what-happens-when-democracies-become-perniciously-polarized-pub-86190), [which is also growing around the world](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/11/16/most-across-19-countries-see-strong-partisan-conflicts-in-their-society-especially-in-south-korea-and-the-u-s/).\n* Living standards in capitalist liberal democracies are decreasing, which sows doubt on the promises of capitalism and liberal democracy:\n * See \"[Living standards tumbling in Australia despite booming national wealth](https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/living-standards-tumbling-in-australia-despite-booming-national-wealth,15747)\" and \"[Britons ‘need to accept’ they’re poorer, says Bank of England economist](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/apr/25/britons-need-to-accept-theyre-poorer-says-bank-of-england-economist)\".\n * Even if you blame external factors for these problems, such as the COVID-19 pandemic or the Russian invasion of Ukraine, these events prove to us the resilience of authoritarian systems in the PRC and Russia in contrast to liberal democracies, as declining living standards don't destabilise them as much.\n * The large-scale international resurgence of the far-right is [partially fed by legitimate concerns of economic insecurity](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/31/across-europe-the-far-right-is-rising-that-it-seems-normal-is-all-the-more-terrifying).\n\nTo conclude, while I believe that Fukuyama's concepts have been debunked by recent history, I can also understand why Fukuyama made such claims in the 1990s. Back then, he wouldn't have been able to foresee the problems that we're facing now.",
"date": "2023-11-24",
"id": "183a31j",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 292,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Francis Fukuyama's \"End of History\" has been proven wrong",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/183a31j/cmv_francis_fukuyamas_end_of_history_has_been/"
},
{
"author": "EmptyChocolate4545",
"body": "End of history ended a long time ago. This is a well-written about topic and anyone would be hard-pressed to change your view that a naive view of the end of tons of this stuff from the 90s is still valid considering what is happening in the world right now that directly contradicts it.",
"date": "2023-11-25",
"id": "kapht4v",
"parent_id": "183a31j",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
"body": "This post is partially inspired by this news story: [Bin Laden's Letter to US Stuns Young Americans: 'He Was Right'](https://www.newsweek.com/bin-laden-letter-us-stuns-young-americans-he-was-right-1844234)\n\nFrancis Fukuyama is an American political scientist who wrote of the \"End of History\". This concept posits that with fascism and communism defeated, humanity will now gravitate towards a gradual universal adoption of capitalist liberal democracy. Fukuyama also claimed that the \"End of History\" will reduce conflicts between nations as the people concern themselves less with ideology and national identity, as increasing economic prosperity becomes the main concern and smooths over other concerns. Thanks to recent history, I think that such a concept is now laughable:\n\n* Regarding the news story about young Americans agreeing with Bin Laden, this goes to show that even within capitalist liberal democracies, this model is being undermined inconvenient truths, which are further spread by social media and influencers.\n * There is a lot of dirt to be dug up about capitalist liberal democracies (e.g. regime change operations, war crimes, atrocities against indigenous peoples). With the advent of the internet, these inconvenient truths are easier to find and therefore further weaken our nations through distrust, while more authoritarian countries can keep their dirt under wraps.\n * I'm not against truth and freedom of information, I'm just pointing out that the model that Fukuyama believed would triumph is actually quite fragile and easy to undermine.\n* [Democratic backsliding](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_backsliding) is occurring in many countries across the world, vastly overshadowing any progress in democratisation:\n * See [this report from 2020](https://web.archive.org/web/20210914030243/https://www.v-dem.net/media/filer_public/74/8c/748c68ad-f224-4cd7-87f9-8794add5c60f/dr_2021_updated.pdf) or [this report from 2022](https://web.archive.org/web/20230314164628/https://bti-project.org/en/reports/global-dashboard?&cb=00000).\n * There seems to be a perverse incentive to democratic backsliding, as increasing autocracy appears to be advantageous to leaders who intend to govern like a Paradox Interactive grand strategy game (i.e. to make their country even more powerful on the world stage).\n * Additionally, [multiple countries are experiencing a double whammy of democratic backsliding and political polarisation](https://carnegieendowment.org/2022/01/18/what-happens-when-democracies-become-perniciously-polarized-pub-86190), [which is also growing around the world](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/11/16/most-across-19-countries-see-strong-partisan-conflicts-in-their-society-especially-in-south-korea-and-the-u-s/).\n* Living standards in capitalist liberal democracies are decreasing, which sows doubt on the promises of capitalism and liberal democracy:\n * See \"[Living standards tumbling in Australia despite booming national wealth](https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/living-standards-tumbling-in-australia-despite-booming-national-wealth,15747)\" and \"[Britons ‘need to accept’ they’re poorer, says Bank of England economist](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/apr/25/britons-need-to-accept-theyre-poorer-says-bank-of-england-economist)\".\n * Even if you blame external factors for these problems, such as the COVID-19 pandemic or the Russian invasion of Ukraine, these events prove to us the resilience of authoritarian systems in the PRC and Russia in contrast to liberal democracies, as declining living standards don't destabilise them as much.\n * The large-scale international resurgence of the far-right is [partially fed by legitimate concerns of economic insecurity](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/31/across-europe-the-far-right-is-rising-that-it-seems-normal-is-all-the-more-terrifying).\n\nTo conclude, while I believe that Fukuyama's concepts have been debunked by recent history, I can also understand why Fukuyama made such claims in the 1990s. Back then, he wouldn't have been able to foresee the problems that we're facing now.",
"date": "2023-11-24",
"id": "183a31j",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 292,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Francis Fukuyama's \"End of History\" has been proven wrong",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/183a31j/cmv_francis_fukuyamas_end_of_history_has_been/"
},
{
"author": "DankMemesNQuickNuts",
"body": "I thought this was a subreddit about changing people's mind about an opinion this is just an objective fact. The author has even said it himself",
"date": "2023-11-25",
"id": "kapkd44",
"parent_id": "183a31j",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
"body": "This post is partially inspired by this news story: [Bin Laden's Letter to US Stuns Young Americans: 'He Was Right'](https://www.newsweek.com/bin-laden-letter-us-stuns-young-americans-he-was-right-1844234)\n\nFrancis Fukuyama is an American political scientist who wrote of the \"End of History\". This concept posits that with fascism and communism defeated, humanity will now gravitate towards a gradual universal adoption of capitalist liberal democracy. Fukuyama also claimed that the \"End of History\" will reduce conflicts between nations as the people concern themselves less with ideology and national identity, as increasing economic prosperity becomes the main concern and smooths over other concerns. Thanks to recent history, I think that such a concept is now laughable:\n\n* Regarding the news story about young Americans agreeing with Bin Laden, this goes to show that even within capitalist liberal democracies, this model is being undermined inconvenient truths, which are further spread by social media and influencers.\n * There is a lot of dirt to be dug up about capitalist liberal democracies (e.g. regime change operations, war crimes, atrocities against indigenous peoples). With the advent of the internet, these inconvenient truths are easier to find and therefore further weaken our nations through distrust, while more authoritarian countries can keep their dirt under wraps.\n * I'm not against truth and freedom of information, I'm just pointing out that the model that Fukuyama believed would triumph is actually quite fragile and easy to undermine.\n* [Democratic backsliding](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_backsliding) is occurring in many countries across the world, vastly overshadowing any progress in democratisation:\n * See [this report from 2020](https://web.archive.org/web/20210914030243/https://www.v-dem.net/media/filer_public/74/8c/748c68ad-f224-4cd7-87f9-8794add5c60f/dr_2021_updated.pdf) or [this report from 2022](https://web.archive.org/web/20230314164628/https://bti-project.org/en/reports/global-dashboard?&cb=00000).\n * There seems to be a perverse incentive to democratic backsliding, as increasing autocracy appears to be advantageous to leaders who intend to govern like a Paradox Interactive grand strategy game (i.e. to make their country even more powerful on the world stage).\n * Additionally, [multiple countries are experiencing a double whammy of democratic backsliding and political polarisation](https://carnegieendowment.org/2022/01/18/what-happens-when-democracies-become-perniciously-polarized-pub-86190), [which is also growing around the world](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/11/16/most-across-19-countries-see-strong-partisan-conflicts-in-their-society-especially-in-south-korea-and-the-u-s/).\n* Living standards in capitalist liberal democracies are decreasing, which sows doubt on the promises of capitalism and liberal democracy:\n * See \"[Living standards tumbling in Australia despite booming national wealth](https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/living-standards-tumbling-in-australia-despite-booming-national-wealth,15747)\" and \"[Britons ‘need to accept’ they’re poorer, says Bank of England economist](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/apr/25/britons-need-to-accept-theyre-poorer-says-bank-of-england-economist)\".\n * Even if you blame external factors for these problems, such as the COVID-19 pandemic or the Russian invasion of Ukraine, these events prove to us the resilience of authoritarian systems in the PRC and Russia in contrast to liberal democracies, as declining living standards don't destabilise them as much.\n * The large-scale international resurgence of the far-right is [partially fed by legitimate concerns of economic insecurity](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/31/across-europe-the-far-right-is-rising-that-it-seems-normal-is-all-the-more-terrifying).\n\nTo conclude, while I believe that Fukuyama's concepts have been debunked by recent history, I can also understand why Fukuyama made such claims in the 1990s. Back then, he wouldn't have been able to foresee the problems that we're facing now.",
"date": "2023-11-24",
"id": "183a31j",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 292,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Francis Fukuyama's \"End of History\" has been proven wrong",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/183a31j/cmv_francis_fukuyamas_end_of_history_has_been/"
},
{
"author": "Da_Sigismund",
"body": "Yes. Fukuyama is wrong. Democracy is not an automatic thing. It's a fragile system that can be subserved. And capitalism can be perverted with monopolies. \n\nIf you look at the state of things, several places are at risk of becoming a neofeudalistic society at some point in the future. \n\nThe rich are becoming so rich that risks are diminishing and generational wealth is ramping up. They are controlling more and more and automation will probably help them ditch a lot of the work force in the future.",
"date": "2023-11-25",
"id": "kapqiab",
"parent_id": "183a31j",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
"body": "This post is partially inspired by this news story: [Bin Laden's Letter to US Stuns Young Americans: 'He Was Right'](https://www.newsweek.com/bin-laden-letter-us-stuns-young-americans-he-was-right-1844234)\n\nFrancis Fukuyama is an American political scientist who wrote of the \"End of History\". This concept posits that with fascism and communism defeated, humanity will now gravitate towards a gradual universal adoption of capitalist liberal democracy. Fukuyama also claimed that the \"End of History\" will reduce conflicts between nations as the people concern themselves less with ideology and national identity, as increasing economic prosperity becomes the main concern and smooths over other concerns. Thanks to recent history, I think that such a concept is now laughable:\n\n* Regarding the news story about young Americans agreeing with Bin Laden, this goes to show that even within capitalist liberal democracies, this model is being undermined inconvenient truths, which are further spread by social media and influencers.\n * There is a lot of dirt to be dug up about capitalist liberal democracies (e.g. regime change operations, war crimes, atrocities against indigenous peoples). With the advent of the internet, these inconvenient truths are easier to find and therefore further weaken our nations through distrust, while more authoritarian countries can keep their dirt under wraps.\n * I'm not against truth and freedom of information, I'm just pointing out that the model that Fukuyama believed would triumph is actually quite fragile and easy to undermine.\n* [Democratic backsliding](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_backsliding) is occurring in many countries across the world, vastly overshadowing any progress in democratisation:\n * See [this report from 2020](https://web.archive.org/web/20210914030243/https://www.v-dem.net/media/filer_public/74/8c/748c68ad-f224-4cd7-87f9-8794add5c60f/dr_2021_updated.pdf) or [this report from 2022](https://web.archive.org/web/20230314164628/https://bti-project.org/en/reports/global-dashboard?&cb=00000).\n * There seems to be a perverse incentive to democratic backsliding, as increasing autocracy appears to be advantageous to leaders who intend to govern like a Paradox Interactive grand strategy game (i.e. to make their country even more powerful on the world stage).\n * Additionally, [multiple countries are experiencing a double whammy of democratic backsliding and political polarisation](https://carnegieendowment.org/2022/01/18/what-happens-when-democracies-become-perniciously-polarized-pub-86190), [which is also growing around the world](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/11/16/most-across-19-countries-see-strong-partisan-conflicts-in-their-society-especially-in-south-korea-and-the-u-s/).\n* Living standards in capitalist liberal democracies are decreasing, which sows doubt on the promises of capitalism and liberal democracy:\n * See \"[Living standards tumbling in Australia despite booming national wealth](https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/living-standards-tumbling-in-australia-despite-booming-national-wealth,15747)\" and \"[Britons ‘need to accept’ they’re poorer, says Bank of England economist](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/apr/25/britons-need-to-accept-theyre-poorer-says-bank-of-england-economist)\".\n * Even if you blame external factors for these problems, such as the COVID-19 pandemic or the Russian invasion of Ukraine, these events prove to us the resilience of authoritarian systems in the PRC and Russia in contrast to liberal democracies, as declining living standards don't destabilise them as much.\n * The large-scale international resurgence of the far-right is [partially fed by legitimate concerns of economic insecurity](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/31/across-europe-the-far-right-is-rising-that-it-seems-normal-is-all-the-more-terrifying).\n\nTo conclude, while I believe that Fukuyama's concepts have been debunked by recent history, I can also understand why Fukuyama made such claims in the 1990s. Back then, he wouldn't have been able to foresee the problems that we're facing now.",
"date": "2023-11-24",
"id": "183a31j",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 292,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Francis Fukuyama's \"End of History\" has been proven wrong",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/183a31j/cmv_francis_fukuyamas_end_of_history_has_been/"
},
{
"author": "KilgoreTroutPfc",
"body": "The End of History only held up until the Balkan Wars. By the time I was in college it was already being taught as a debunked theory.",
"date": "2023-11-25",
"id": "kaqta2a",
"parent_id": "183a31j",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
"body": "This post is partially inspired by this news story: [Bin Laden's Letter to US Stuns Young Americans: 'He Was Right'](https://www.newsweek.com/bin-laden-letter-us-stuns-young-americans-he-was-right-1844234)\n\nFrancis Fukuyama is an American political scientist who wrote of the \"End of History\". This concept posits that with fascism and communism defeated, humanity will now gravitate towards a gradual universal adoption of capitalist liberal democracy. Fukuyama also claimed that the \"End of History\" will reduce conflicts between nations as the people concern themselves less with ideology and national identity, as increasing economic prosperity becomes the main concern and smooths over other concerns. Thanks to recent history, I think that such a concept is now laughable:\n\n* Regarding the news story about young Americans agreeing with Bin Laden, this goes to show that even within capitalist liberal democracies, this model is being undermined inconvenient truths, which are further spread by social media and influencers.\n * There is a lot of dirt to be dug up about capitalist liberal democracies (e.g. regime change operations, war crimes, atrocities against indigenous peoples). With the advent of the internet, these inconvenient truths are easier to find and therefore further weaken our nations through distrust, while more authoritarian countries can keep their dirt under wraps.\n * I'm not against truth and freedom of information, I'm just pointing out that the model that Fukuyama believed would triumph is actually quite fragile and easy to undermine.\n* [Democratic backsliding](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_backsliding) is occurring in many countries across the world, vastly overshadowing any progress in democratisation:\n * See [this report from 2020](https://web.archive.org/web/20210914030243/https://www.v-dem.net/media/filer_public/74/8c/748c68ad-f224-4cd7-87f9-8794add5c60f/dr_2021_updated.pdf) or [this report from 2022](https://web.archive.org/web/20230314164628/https://bti-project.org/en/reports/global-dashboard?&cb=00000).\n * There seems to be a perverse incentive to democratic backsliding, as increasing autocracy appears to be advantageous to leaders who intend to govern like a Paradox Interactive grand strategy game (i.e. to make their country even more powerful on the world stage).\n * Additionally, [multiple countries are experiencing a double whammy of democratic backsliding and political polarisation](https://carnegieendowment.org/2022/01/18/what-happens-when-democracies-become-perniciously-polarized-pub-86190), [which is also growing around the world](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/11/16/most-across-19-countries-see-strong-partisan-conflicts-in-their-society-especially-in-south-korea-and-the-u-s/).\n* Living standards in capitalist liberal democracies are decreasing, which sows doubt on the promises of capitalism and liberal democracy:\n * See \"[Living standards tumbling in Australia despite booming national wealth](https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/living-standards-tumbling-in-australia-despite-booming-national-wealth,15747)\" and \"[Britons ‘need to accept’ they’re poorer, says Bank of England economist](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/apr/25/britons-need-to-accept-theyre-poorer-says-bank-of-england-economist)\".\n * Even if you blame external factors for these problems, such as the COVID-19 pandemic or the Russian invasion of Ukraine, these events prove to us the resilience of authoritarian systems in the PRC and Russia in contrast to liberal democracies, as declining living standards don't destabilise them as much.\n * The large-scale international resurgence of the far-right is [partially fed by legitimate concerns of economic insecurity](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/31/across-europe-the-far-right-is-rising-that-it-seems-normal-is-all-the-more-terrifying).\n\nTo conclude, while I believe that Fukuyama's concepts have been debunked by recent history, I can also understand why Fukuyama made such claims in the 1990s. Back then, he wouldn't have been able to foresee the problems that we're facing now.",
"date": "2023-11-24",
"id": "183a31j",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 292,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Francis Fukuyama's \"End of History\" has been proven wrong",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/183a31j/cmv_francis_fukuyamas_end_of_history_has_been/"
},
{
"author": "yelkca",
"body": "These days, he would agree with you.",
"date": "2023-11-26",
"id": "kasz291",
"parent_id": "183a31j",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
]
]
| moderate |
[
{
"author": "Sleepycoon",
"body": "I think it's safe to say that in the US at least the chocolate chip cookie is the de facto cookie. It's the one that most people immediately think of when hearing \"cookie,\" it's the one that 95% of the results are if you Google image search \"cookie,\" it's *the* cookie.\n\nThe other contender, or more accurately, the runner up, is the sugar cookie. It's the default cookie. The most basic, nondescript, blank canvas of a cookie out there. It's a classic for holidays, decorating, and the cookie that most cookie flavored things are based on.\n\nThe basic version of these two cookies are very similar. They're both flour, baking soda, salt, softened butter, egg, vanilla, and sugar in similar quantities. The only two notable differences are the chocolate chips and that sugar cookies are made with white sugar and chocolate chip cookies are made with brown sugar.\n\nIntuition would say that the integral difference in basic sugar cookies and *chocolate chip* cookies is *chocolate chips*. It's in the name, it's the iconic chip-in-cookie look, it's the textural variety of crunchy-on-the-outside melty-on-the-inside chunks in your cookie, it's the difference in vanilla and sugar flavored vs vanilla, sugar, and chocolate flavored. Obviously the chocolate chips are what make the chocolate chip cookie!\n\nI posit, though, that if I were to ask someone to describe two cookies, one a classic chocolate chip cookie recipe but *without* the chips and one a classic sugar cookie recipe but *with* chocolate chips added, most people would say something along the lines of, \"This is a sugar cookie with chocolate chips, and this chocolate chip cookie has no chocolate chips in it.\"\n\nThe look, feel, texture, and taste of the brown sugar cookie base is iconic and recognizable enough that a brown sugar cookie will generally be identified as a chocolate chip cookie even without the chocolate chips because it's the brown sugar, not the chocolate chips, that give it most of its defining traits. In the same way, the dough base is so integral that even though \"chocolate chip cookie\" simply implies a cookie with chocolate chips most people would not call a cookie with chocolate chips a chocolate chip cookie if it wasn't a brown sugar cookie with chocolate chips.\n\nI haven't had the opportunity to blind test my hypothesis, so I thought I'd lay my chips on the table and see if anyone on here can give me a compelling reason as to why I'm incorrect.",
"date": "2023-11-29",
"id": "186y802",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 286,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The integral ingredient to chocolate chip cookies is brown sugar, not chocolate chips.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/186y802/cmv_the_integral_ingredient_to_chocolate_chip/"
},
{
"author": "Lazy_Trash_6297",
"body": "Cookies have so few ingredients that every ingredient makes a huge difference. \n\nI’d argue that the texture isn’t one of the main feature of a chocolate chip cookie. \n\nChocolate chip cookies can have a range of textures from crispy to cakey. Martha Stewart’s basic chocolate chip cookie is really cakey. But if you bought a Tate’s chocolate chip it’s more on the crispy side and not cakey at all. \n\nI do think that some chewy ness is essential to a good chocolate chip. But they can be recognizably a good chocolate chip cookie without being chewy. \n\nBrown sugar is basically just white sugar with molasses, so you can imitate that in other ways. You can make chocolate chip cookies with honey, for instance. You can make them with white sugar they just won’t be as chewy- these recipes exist. \n\nThere are also a lot of variations of chocolate chip cookies that we will still recognize as a chocolate chip cookie even if they’re really different . Dorie Greenspan’s chocolate chunker cookie is one- it tastes like a richer more decadent chocolate chip, it’s chewy, but it doesn’t have brown sugar. By volume it’s more mix-ins than dough. \nhttps://www.saveur.com/chocolate-chunker-cookie-recipe/",
"date": "2023-11-29",
"id": "kbb5jn5",
"parent_id": "186y802",
"score": 4,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Sleepycoon",
"body": "Yeah I think this is a !delta because while I was thinking only in terms of the classic or basic chocolate chip cookie, I didn't specify that and wasn't really thinking about the number of variant chocolate chip cookies like the one you linked, white chocolate chip macadamia nut, etc. Furthermore, specifying the inclusion of molasses over brown sugar would have been more accurate.\n\nI think my point still stands that for a traditional plain chocolate chip cookie the importance of the molasses is equal to, if not greater than, the chocolate chips and a random person would likely immediately identify a brown sugar cookie as a chocolate chip cookie that someone forgot to put chocolate chips in before they ever called it a sugar cookie with molasses.",
"date": "2023-11-29",
"id": "kbb7hic",
"parent_id": "kbb5jn5",
"score": 4,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "DeltaBot",
"body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Lazy_Trash_6297 ([2∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Lazy_Trash_6297)).\n\n^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
"date": "2023-11-29",
"id": "kbb7kfp",
"parent_id": "kbb7hic",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
]
| [
[
{
"author": "Sleepycoon",
"body": "I think it's safe to say that in the US at least the chocolate chip cookie is the de facto cookie. It's the one that most people immediately think of when hearing \"cookie,\" it's the one that 95% of the results are if you Google image search \"cookie,\" it's *the* cookie.\n\nThe other contender, or more accurately, the runner up, is the sugar cookie. It's the default cookie. The most basic, nondescript, blank canvas of a cookie out there. It's a classic for holidays, decorating, and the cookie that most cookie flavored things are based on.\n\nThe basic version of these two cookies are very similar. They're both flour, baking soda, salt, softened butter, egg, vanilla, and sugar in similar quantities. The only two notable differences are the chocolate chips and that sugar cookies are made with white sugar and chocolate chip cookies are made with brown sugar.\n\nIntuition would say that the integral difference in basic sugar cookies and *chocolate chip* cookies is *chocolate chips*. It's in the name, it's the iconic chip-in-cookie look, it's the textural variety of crunchy-on-the-outside melty-on-the-inside chunks in your cookie, it's the difference in vanilla and sugar flavored vs vanilla, sugar, and chocolate flavored. Obviously the chocolate chips are what make the chocolate chip cookie!\n\nI posit, though, that if I were to ask someone to describe two cookies, one a classic chocolate chip cookie recipe but *without* the chips and one a classic sugar cookie recipe but *with* chocolate chips added, most people would say something along the lines of, \"This is a sugar cookie with chocolate chips, and this chocolate chip cookie has no chocolate chips in it.\"\n\nThe look, feel, texture, and taste of the brown sugar cookie base is iconic and recognizable enough that a brown sugar cookie will generally be identified as a chocolate chip cookie even without the chocolate chips because it's the brown sugar, not the chocolate chips, that give it most of its defining traits. In the same way, the dough base is so integral that even though \"chocolate chip cookie\" simply implies a cookie with chocolate chips most people would not call a cookie with chocolate chips a chocolate chip cookie if it wasn't a brown sugar cookie with chocolate chips.\n\nI haven't had the opportunity to blind test my hypothesis, so I thought I'd lay my chips on the table and see if anyone on here can give me a compelling reason as to why I'm incorrect.",
"date": "2023-11-29",
"id": "186y802",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 286,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The integral ingredient to chocolate chip cookies is brown sugar, not chocolate chips.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/186y802/cmv_the_integral_ingredient_to_chocolate_chip/"
},
{
"author": "Lylieth",
"body": "What is a chocolate chip cookie without chocolate chips?\n\nI argue they're just \"[brown surgar cookies](https://sallysbakingaddiction.com/chewy-brown-sugar-cookies/)\".",
"date": "2023-11-29",
"id": "kbazz9v",
"parent_id": "186y802",
"score": 24,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Sleepycoon",
"body": "And I'd argue that if you made brown sugar cookies and handed them out most people would think, \"This idiot forgot to put chocolate chips in this chocolate chip cookie!\" before they think, \"Oh boy a brown sugar cookie!\"",
"date": "2023-11-29",
"id": "kbb7w9x",
"parent_id": "kbazz9v",
"score": -6,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Sleepycoon",
"body": "I think it's safe to say that in the US at least the chocolate chip cookie is the de facto cookie. It's the one that most people immediately think of when hearing \"cookie,\" it's the one that 95% of the results are if you Google image search \"cookie,\" it's *the* cookie.\n\nThe other contender, or more accurately, the runner up, is the sugar cookie. It's the default cookie. The most basic, nondescript, blank canvas of a cookie out there. It's a classic for holidays, decorating, and the cookie that most cookie flavored things are based on.\n\nThe basic version of these two cookies are very similar. They're both flour, baking soda, salt, softened butter, egg, vanilla, and sugar in similar quantities. The only two notable differences are the chocolate chips and that sugar cookies are made with white sugar and chocolate chip cookies are made with brown sugar.\n\nIntuition would say that the integral difference in basic sugar cookies and *chocolate chip* cookies is *chocolate chips*. It's in the name, it's the iconic chip-in-cookie look, it's the textural variety of crunchy-on-the-outside melty-on-the-inside chunks in your cookie, it's the difference in vanilla and sugar flavored vs vanilla, sugar, and chocolate flavored. Obviously the chocolate chips are what make the chocolate chip cookie!\n\nI posit, though, that if I were to ask someone to describe two cookies, one a classic chocolate chip cookie recipe but *without* the chips and one a classic sugar cookie recipe but *with* chocolate chips added, most people would say something along the lines of, \"This is a sugar cookie with chocolate chips, and this chocolate chip cookie has no chocolate chips in it.\"\n\nThe look, feel, texture, and taste of the brown sugar cookie base is iconic and recognizable enough that a brown sugar cookie will generally be identified as a chocolate chip cookie even without the chocolate chips because it's the brown sugar, not the chocolate chips, that give it most of its defining traits. In the same way, the dough base is so integral that even though \"chocolate chip cookie\" simply implies a cookie with chocolate chips most people would not call a cookie with chocolate chips a chocolate chip cookie if it wasn't a brown sugar cookie with chocolate chips.\n\nI haven't had the opportunity to blind test my hypothesis, so I thought I'd lay my chips on the table and see if anyone on here can give me a compelling reason as to why I'm incorrect.",
"date": "2023-11-29",
"id": "186y802",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 286,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The integral ingredient to chocolate chip cookies is brown sugar, not chocolate chips.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/186y802/cmv_the_integral_ingredient_to_chocolate_chip/"
},
{
"author": "muyamable",
"body": "If you ask someone if they want a chocolate chip cookie and they say yes, and you give them a brown sugar cookie without chocolate chips, they're going to be confused because you didn't give them a chocolate chip cookie. \n\nIf you give them a regular sugar cookie with chocolate chips, they might be surprised because it's a non-traditional kind of chocolate chip cookie, but they won't be confused as to why you called it a chocolate chip cookie.",
"date": "2023-11-29",
"id": "kbb2hm8",
"parent_id": "186y802",
"score": 120,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Sleepycoon",
"body": "Would they be confused about what I handed them or ask why I made a sugar cookie with brown sugar, or would they say something more like, \"you forgot to add the chocolate chips.\"?",
"date": "2023-11-29",
"id": "kbb3gta",
"parent_id": "kbb2hm8",
"score": 8,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Sleepycoon",
"body": "I think it's safe to say that in the US at least the chocolate chip cookie is the de facto cookie. It's the one that most people immediately think of when hearing \"cookie,\" it's the one that 95% of the results are if you Google image search \"cookie,\" it's *the* cookie.\n\nThe other contender, or more accurately, the runner up, is the sugar cookie. It's the default cookie. The most basic, nondescript, blank canvas of a cookie out there. It's a classic for holidays, decorating, and the cookie that most cookie flavored things are based on.\n\nThe basic version of these two cookies are very similar. They're both flour, baking soda, salt, softened butter, egg, vanilla, and sugar in similar quantities. The only two notable differences are the chocolate chips and that sugar cookies are made with white sugar and chocolate chip cookies are made with brown sugar.\n\nIntuition would say that the integral difference in basic sugar cookies and *chocolate chip* cookies is *chocolate chips*. It's in the name, it's the iconic chip-in-cookie look, it's the textural variety of crunchy-on-the-outside melty-on-the-inside chunks in your cookie, it's the difference in vanilla and sugar flavored vs vanilla, sugar, and chocolate flavored. Obviously the chocolate chips are what make the chocolate chip cookie!\n\nI posit, though, that if I were to ask someone to describe two cookies, one a classic chocolate chip cookie recipe but *without* the chips and one a classic sugar cookie recipe but *with* chocolate chips added, most people would say something along the lines of, \"This is a sugar cookie with chocolate chips, and this chocolate chip cookie has no chocolate chips in it.\"\n\nThe look, feel, texture, and taste of the brown sugar cookie base is iconic and recognizable enough that a brown sugar cookie will generally be identified as a chocolate chip cookie even without the chocolate chips because it's the brown sugar, not the chocolate chips, that give it most of its defining traits. In the same way, the dough base is so integral that even though \"chocolate chip cookie\" simply implies a cookie with chocolate chips most people would not call a cookie with chocolate chips a chocolate chip cookie if it wasn't a brown sugar cookie with chocolate chips.\n\nI haven't had the opportunity to blind test my hypothesis, so I thought I'd lay my chips on the table and see if anyone on here can give me a compelling reason as to why I'm incorrect.",
"date": "2023-11-29",
"id": "186y802",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 286,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The integral ingredient to chocolate chip cookies is brown sugar, not chocolate chips.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/186y802/cmv_the_integral_ingredient_to_chocolate_chip/"
},
{
"author": "blastzone24",
"body": "If you made two batches of cookies, one a sugar cookie recipe and added chocolate chips, people would say, \"what a weird chocolate chip cookie\"\n\nand then you made a chocolate chip cookie but left out the chocolate chips, people would say \"what a weird sugar cookie\" \n\nArguing that the second is closer to a true chocolate chip recipe than the fist will get you a blank stare from most people and a \"but it didn't have chocolate chips\"",
"date": "2023-11-29",
"id": "kbb2oc4",
"parent_id": "186y802",
"score": 11,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Sleepycoon",
"body": "If I offer someone a chocolate chip cookie and they're anticipating a chocolate chip cookie then I hand them a white sugar chocolate chip cookie it won't be what they had anticipated. If I handed them a brown sugar cookie, it won't be what they anticipated. The first is definitionally a chocolate chip cookie, so they'd accept it as such, but it won't be what they wanted.\n\nIf I had handed them a brown sugar cookie after offering a chocolate chip cookie I don't think most people would identify it as a brown sugar cookie before simply thinking, \"this one didn't get any chips in it.\"\n\nI think both are equally distant from the general expectation of a chocolate chip cookie.",
"date": "2023-11-29",
"id": "kbbb975",
"parent_id": "kbb2oc4",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Sleepycoon",
"body": "I think it's safe to say that in the US at least the chocolate chip cookie is the de facto cookie. It's the one that most people immediately think of when hearing \"cookie,\" it's the one that 95% of the results are if you Google image search \"cookie,\" it's *the* cookie.\n\nThe other contender, or more accurately, the runner up, is the sugar cookie. It's the default cookie. The most basic, nondescript, blank canvas of a cookie out there. It's a classic for holidays, decorating, and the cookie that most cookie flavored things are based on.\n\nThe basic version of these two cookies are very similar. They're both flour, baking soda, salt, softened butter, egg, vanilla, and sugar in similar quantities. The only two notable differences are the chocolate chips and that sugar cookies are made with white sugar and chocolate chip cookies are made with brown sugar.\n\nIntuition would say that the integral difference in basic sugar cookies and *chocolate chip* cookies is *chocolate chips*. It's in the name, it's the iconic chip-in-cookie look, it's the textural variety of crunchy-on-the-outside melty-on-the-inside chunks in your cookie, it's the difference in vanilla and sugar flavored vs vanilla, sugar, and chocolate flavored. Obviously the chocolate chips are what make the chocolate chip cookie!\n\nI posit, though, that if I were to ask someone to describe two cookies, one a classic chocolate chip cookie recipe but *without* the chips and one a classic sugar cookie recipe but *with* chocolate chips added, most people would say something along the lines of, \"This is a sugar cookie with chocolate chips, and this chocolate chip cookie has no chocolate chips in it.\"\n\nThe look, feel, texture, and taste of the brown sugar cookie base is iconic and recognizable enough that a brown sugar cookie will generally be identified as a chocolate chip cookie even without the chocolate chips because it's the brown sugar, not the chocolate chips, that give it most of its defining traits. In the same way, the dough base is so integral that even though \"chocolate chip cookie\" simply implies a cookie with chocolate chips most people would not call a cookie with chocolate chips a chocolate chip cookie if it wasn't a brown sugar cookie with chocolate chips.\n\nI haven't had the opportunity to blind test my hypothesis, so I thought I'd lay my chips on the table and see if anyone on here can give me a compelling reason as to why I'm incorrect.",
"date": "2023-11-29",
"id": "186y802",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 286,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The integral ingredient to chocolate chip cookies is brown sugar, not chocolate chips.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/186y802/cmv_the_integral_ingredient_to_chocolate_chip/"
},
{
"author": "sawdeanz",
"body": "Uh, no. If you put chocolate chips in a sugar cookie recipe 95% of people will call it a chocolate chip cookie. Hands down. It’s not even close. I doubt the average person would even know that they are normally made with brown sugar. Go on. Try it. Ask people on the grocery store to name the ingredients in a chocolate chip cookie. I bet less than half would specifically call out brown sugar. They would think and say “idk, flour, eggs, sugar, chocolate chips, probably baking soda, etc”\n\nIt’s possible you are factually right if you were to ask a panel of bakers, but that’s not the view you presented. You stated that intuitive and popular view is that brown sugar is the defining ingredient and that is wrong simply because most people are not familiar enough with baking to even know the difference. \n\nBut there are reasons to question your statement on a factual basis too. There are dozens if not hundreds of variations of chocolate chip cookies. Vegan ones, oatmeal ones, flourless ones, chocolate ones. They may or may not have brown sugar. But what they do all share the same name…. “Something something chocolate chip cookie.” What is your source that a chocolate chip cookie has to have brown sugar?",
"date": "2023-11-29",
"id": "kbb33pg",
"parent_id": "186y802",
"score": 20,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "hikerchick29",
"body": "The point OP is making isn’t that the chips aren’t necessary. I think they’re trying to say they aren’t the secret to good cookies.",
"date": "2023-11-29",
"id": "kbb6j85",
"parent_id": "kbb33pg",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Sleepycoon",
"body": "I think it's safe to say that in the US at least the chocolate chip cookie is the de facto cookie. It's the one that most people immediately think of when hearing \"cookie,\" it's the one that 95% of the results are if you Google image search \"cookie,\" it's *the* cookie.\n\nThe other contender, or more accurately, the runner up, is the sugar cookie. It's the default cookie. The most basic, nondescript, blank canvas of a cookie out there. It's a classic for holidays, decorating, and the cookie that most cookie flavored things are based on.\n\nThe basic version of these two cookies are very similar. They're both flour, baking soda, salt, softened butter, egg, vanilla, and sugar in similar quantities. The only two notable differences are the chocolate chips and that sugar cookies are made with white sugar and chocolate chip cookies are made with brown sugar.\n\nIntuition would say that the integral difference in basic sugar cookies and *chocolate chip* cookies is *chocolate chips*. It's in the name, it's the iconic chip-in-cookie look, it's the textural variety of crunchy-on-the-outside melty-on-the-inside chunks in your cookie, it's the difference in vanilla and sugar flavored vs vanilla, sugar, and chocolate flavored. Obviously the chocolate chips are what make the chocolate chip cookie!\n\nI posit, though, that if I were to ask someone to describe two cookies, one a classic chocolate chip cookie recipe but *without* the chips and one a classic sugar cookie recipe but *with* chocolate chips added, most people would say something along the lines of, \"This is a sugar cookie with chocolate chips, and this chocolate chip cookie has no chocolate chips in it.\"\n\nThe look, feel, texture, and taste of the brown sugar cookie base is iconic and recognizable enough that a brown sugar cookie will generally be identified as a chocolate chip cookie even without the chocolate chips because it's the brown sugar, not the chocolate chips, that give it most of its defining traits. In the same way, the dough base is so integral that even though \"chocolate chip cookie\" simply implies a cookie with chocolate chips most people would not call a cookie with chocolate chips a chocolate chip cookie if it wasn't a brown sugar cookie with chocolate chips.\n\nI haven't had the opportunity to blind test my hypothesis, so I thought I'd lay my chips on the table and see if anyone on here can give me a compelling reason as to why I'm incorrect.",
"date": "2023-11-29",
"id": "186y802",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 286,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The integral ingredient to chocolate chip cookies is brown sugar, not chocolate chips.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/186y802/cmv_the_integral_ingredient_to_chocolate_chip/"
},
{
"author": "CallMeCorona1",
"body": "I think to be absolutely sure you need to send everyone on reddit cookies.",
"date": "2023-11-29",
"id": "kbb7aqw",
"parent_id": "186y802",
"score": 8,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Sleepycoon",
"body": "This is the best argument so far. Maybe do a control with some chipless brown sugar cookies, some chocolate chip cookies with a single chip, all the way up to just a solid puck of chocolate. Do a survey, find the upper and lower bounds of what people will identify as a chocolate chip cookie.",
"date": "2023-11-29",
"id": "kbbbmi2",
"parent_id": "kbb7aqw",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Sleepycoon",
"body": "I think it's safe to say that in the US at least the chocolate chip cookie is the de facto cookie. It's the one that most people immediately think of when hearing \"cookie,\" it's the one that 95% of the results are if you Google image search \"cookie,\" it's *the* cookie.\n\nThe other contender, or more accurately, the runner up, is the sugar cookie. It's the default cookie. The most basic, nondescript, blank canvas of a cookie out there. It's a classic for holidays, decorating, and the cookie that most cookie flavored things are based on.\n\nThe basic version of these two cookies are very similar. They're both flour, baking soda, salt, softened butter, egg, vanilla, and sugar in similar quantities. The only two notable differences are the chocolate chips and that sugar cookies are made with white sugar and chocolate chip cookies are made with brown sugar.\n\nIntuition would say that the integral difference in basic sugar cookies and *chocolate chip* cookies is *chocolate chips*. It's in the name, it's the iconic chip-in-cookie look, it's the textural variety of crunchy-on-the-outside melty-on-the-inside chunks in your cookie, it's the difference in vanilla and sugar flavored vs vanilla, sugar, and chocolate flavored. Obviously the chocolate chips are what make the chocolate chip cookie!\n\nI posit, though, that if I were to ask someone to describe two cookies, one a classic chocolate chip cookie recipe but *without* the chips and one a classic sugar cookie recipe but *with* chocolate chips added, most people would say something along the lines of, \"This is a sugar cookie with chocolate chips, and this chocolate chip cookie has no chocolate chips in it.\"\n\nThe look, feel, texture, and taste of the brown sugar cookie base is iconic and recognizable enough that a brown sugar cookie will generally be identified as a chocolate chip cookie even without the chocolate chips because it's the brown sugar, not the chocolate chips, that give it most of its defining traits. In the same way, the dough base is so integral that even though \"chocolate chip cookie\" simply implies a cookie with chocolate chips most people would not call a cookie with chocolate chips a chocolate chip cookie if it wasn't a brown sugar cookie with chocolate chips.\n\nI haven't had the opportunity to blind test my hypothesis, so I thought I'd lay my chips on the table and see if anyone on here can give me a compelling reason as to why I'm incorrect.",
"date": "2023-11-29",
"id": "186y802",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 286,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The integral ingredient to chocolate chip cookies is brown sugar, not chocolate chips.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/186y802/cmv_the_integral_ingredient_to_chocolate_chip/"
},
{
"author": "jatjqtjat",
"body": ">I posit, though, that if I were to ask someone to describe two cookies, one a classic chocolate chip cookie recipe but without the chips and one a classic sugar cookie recipe but with chocolate chips added, most people would say something along the lines of, \"This is a sugar cookie with chocolate chips, and this chocolate chip cookie has no chocolate chips in it.\"\n\nI'll dm you my address, you can mail me some cookies and I will give them to my wife and kids who have not read your post.\n\nfor the sugar cookie with chocolate chips added\n\n* I'm sure my kids will say that they are the chocolate chip cookies. they are 4 and 6. They know what chocolate ships are. These cookies have chocolate chips in them.\n* My wife, I'm fairly sure would say, \"this is an unusual chocolate chip cookie\" or she might say \"what is wrong with this chocolate chip cookie\". These cookies have chocolate chips in them. \n* my mother in law, who is a good cook and very familiarly with many differences recipes might say, \"whoever made this chocolate chip cookies must have run out of brown sugar\"\n\nfor the chocolate chip cookies without chocolates chips.\n\n* I'm sure that nobody in my family would be able to identity these as a common type of cookie. They would say things like, \"what kind of cookie is this\"",
"date": "2023-11-29",
"id": "kbb8fsx",
"parent_id": "186y802",
"score": 7,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Sleepycoon",
"body": "I think it's safe to say that in the US at least the chocolate chip cookie is the de facto cookie. It's the one that most people immediately think of when hearing \"cookie,\" it's the one that 95% of the results are if you Google image search \"cookie,\" it's *the* cookie.\n\nThe other contender, or more accurately, the runner up, is the sugar cookie. It's the default cookie. The most basic, nondescript, blank canvas of a cookie out there. It's a classic for holidays, decorating, and the cookie that most cookie flavored things are based on.\n\nThe basic version of these two cookies are very similar. They're both flour, baking soda, salt, softened butter, egg, vanilla, and sugar in similar quantities. The only two notable differences are the chocolate chips and that sugar cookies are made with white sugar and chocolate chip cookies are made with brown sugar.\n\nIntuition would say that the integral difference in basic sugar cookies and *chocolate chip* cookies is *chocolate chips*. It's in the name, it's the iconic chip-in-cookie look, it's the textural variety of crunchy-on-the-outside melty-on-the-inside chunks in your cookie, it's the difference in vanilla and sugar flavored vs vanilla, sugar, and chocolate flavored. Obviously the chocolate chips are what make the chocolate chip cookie!\n\nI posit, though, that if I were to ask someone to describe two cookies, one a classic chocolate chip cookie recipe but *without* the chips and one a classic sugar cookie recipe but *with* chocolate chips added, most people would say something along the lines of, \"This is a sugar cookie with chocolate chips, and this chocolate chip cookie has no chocolate chips in it.\"\n\nThe look, feel, texture, and taste of the brown sugar cookie base is iconic and recognizable enough that a brown sugar cookie will generally be identified as a chocolate chip cookie even without the chocolate chips because it's the brown sugar, not the chocolate chips, that give it most of its defining traits. In the same way, the dough base is so integral that even though \"chocolate chip cookie\" simply implies a cookie with chocolate chips most people would not call a cookie with chocolate chips a chocolate chip cookie if it wasn't a brown sugar cookie with chocolate chips.\n\nI haven't had the opportunity to blind test my hypothesis, so I thought I'd lay my chips on the table and see if anyone on here can give me a compelling reason as to why I'm incorrect.",
"date": "2023-11-29",
"id": "186y802",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 286,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The integral ingredient to chocolate chip cookies is brown sugar, not chocolate chips.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/186y802/cmv_the_integral_ingredient_to_chocolate_chip/"
},
{
"author": "Bobbob34",
"body": ">The basic version of these two cookies are very similar. They're both flour, baking soda, salt, softened butter, egg, vanilla, and sugar in similar quantities. The only two notable differences are the chocolate chips and that sugar cookies are made with white sugar and chocolate chip cookies are made with brown sugar.\r\n\nYou're confusing a drop cookie and a rolled cookie which are very different. It's not just brown sugar. I rarely use brown sugar and I make great choc chip cookies. Sugar cookies are a different animal.",
"date": "2023-11-29",
"id": "kbba58j",
"parent_id": "186y802",
"score": 4,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Sleepycoon",
"body": "I think it's safe to say that in the US at least the chocolate chip cookie is the de facto cookie. It's the one that most people immediately think of when hearing \"cookie,\" it's the one that 95% of the results are if you Google image search \"cookie,\" it's *the* cookie.\n\nThe other contender, or more accurately, the runner up, is the sugar cookie. It's the default cookie. The most basic, nondescript, blank canvas of a cookie out there. It's a classic for holidays, decorating, and the cookie that most cookie flavored things are based on.\n\nThe basic version of these two cookies are very similar. They're both flour, baking soda, salt, softened butter, egg, vanilla, and sugar in similar quantities. The only two notable differences are the chocolate chips and that sugar cookies are made with white sugar and chocolate chip cookies are made with brown sugar.\n\nIntuition would say that the integral difference in basic sugar cookies and *chocolate chip* cookies is *chocolate chips*. It's in the name, it's the iconic chip-in-cookie look, it's the textural variety of crunchy-on-the-outside melty-on-the-inside chunks in your cookie, it's the difference in vanilla and sugar flavored vs vanilla, sugar, and chocolate flavored. Obviously the chocolate chips are what make the chocolate chip cookie!\n\nI posit, though, that if I were to ask someone to describe two cookies, one a classic chocolate chip cookie recipe but *without* the chips and one a classic sugar cookie recipe but *with* chocolate chips added, most people would say something along the lines of, \"This is a sugar cookie with chocolate chips, and this chocolate chip cookie has no chocolate chips in it.\"\n\nThe look, feel, texture, and taste of the brown sugar cookie base is iconic and recognizable enough that a brown sugar cookie will generally be identified as a chocolate chip cookie even without the chocolate chips because it's the brown sugar, not the chocolate chips, that give it most of its defining traits. In the same way, the dough base is so integral that even though \"chocolate chip cookie\" simply implies a cookie with chocolate chips most people would not call a cookie with chocolate chips a chocolate chip cookie if it wasn't a brown sugar cookie with chocolate chips.\n\nI haven't had the opportunity to blind test my hypothesis, so I thought I'd lay my chips on the table and see if anyone on here can give me a compelling reason as to why I'm incorrect.",
"date": "2023-11-29",
"id": "186y802",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 286,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The integral ingredient to chocolate chip cookies is brown sugar, not chocolate chips.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/186y802/cmv_the_integral_ingredient_to_chocolate_chip/"
},
{
"author": "Adequate_Images",
"body": "“The integral ingredient to pepperoni pizza is the cheese, not the pepperoni”\n\nThis makes as much sense as your statement. \n\nWe have different names for things for a reason.",
"date": "2023-11-29",
"id": "kbbhsc7",
"parent_id": "186y802",
"score": 15,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Sleepycoon",
"body": "While this is hilarious I think it kind of supports the point I was trying to make.\n\nIf anything cheese is more integral to what people expect from a pepperoni pizza than molasses is to a chocolate chip cookie.\n\nIf you order a pepperoni pizza the cheese is assumed. No one orders a \"pepperoni and cheese pizza\" and if someone wants a pizza with just pepperoni they're going to specify no cheese.\n\nIf you order a pepperoni pizza and they set a pizza with pepperonis but no cheese on your table you're probably going to send it back to be remade and not accept, \"But you wanted pepperoni pizza and this meets the definition.\" as a reasonable explanation.\n\nIf I buy a chocolate chip cookie and I'm given a chocolate chip cookie made with white sugar and no molasses I'm going to be disappointed and a little confused as to why they'd make it like that. It's not going to taste or feel like the cookie I wanted.",
"date": "2023-11-29",
"id": "kbbkskg",
"parent_id": "kbbhsc7",
"score": -1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Sleepycoon",
"body": "I think it's safe to say that in the US at least the chocolate chip cookie is the de facto cookie. It's the one that most people immediately think of when hearing \"cookie,\" it's the one that 95% of the results are if you Google image search \"cookie,\" it's *the* cookie.\n\nThe other contender, or more accurately, the runner up, is the sugar cookie. It's the default cookie. The most basic, nondescript, blank canvas of a cookie out there. It's a classic for holidays, decorating, and the cookie that most cookie flavored things are based on.\n\nThe basic version of these two cookies are very similar. They're both flour, baking soda, salt, softened butter, egg, vanilla, and sugar in similar quantities. The only two notable differences are the chocolate chips and that sugar cookies are made with white sugar and chocolate chip cookies are made with brown sugar.\n\nIntuition would say that the integral difference in basic sugar cookies and *chocolate chip* cookies is *chocolate chips*. It's in the name, it's the iconic chip-in-cookie look, it's the textural variety of crunchy-on-the-outside melty-on-the-inside chunks in your cookie, it's the difference in vanilla and sugar flavored vs vanilla, sugar, and chocolate flavored. Obviously the chocolate chips are what make the chocolate chip cookie!\n\nI posit, though, that if I were to ask someone to describe two cookies, one a classic chocolate chip cookie recipe but *without* the chips and one a classic sugar cookie recipe but *with* chocolate chips added, most people would say something along the lines of, \"This is a sugar cookie with chocolate chips, and this chocolate chip cookie has no chocolate chips in it.\"\n\nThe look, feel, texture, and taste of the brown sugar cookie base is iconic and recognizable enough that a brown sugar cookie will generally be identified as a chocolate chip cookie even without the chocolate chips because it's the brown sugar, not the chocolate chips, that give it most of its defining traits. In the same way, the dough base is so integral that even though \"chocolate chip cookie\" simply implies a cookie with chocolate chips most people would not call a cookie with chocolate chips a chocolate chip cookie if it wasn't a brown sugar cookie with chocolate chips.\n\nI haven't had the opportunity to blind test my hypothesis, so I thought I'd lay my chips on the table and see if anyone on here can give me a compelling reason as to why I'm incorrect.",
"date": "2023-11-29",
"id": "186y802",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 286,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The integral ingredient to chocolate chip cookies is brown sugar, not chocolate chips.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/186y802/cmv_the_integral_ingredient_to_chocolate_chip/"
},
{
"author": "Haunting_Rain_3951",
"body": "You just don’t know what a chocolate chip cookie is. Adding cinnamon makes it a different cookie.",
"date": "2023-11-29",
"id": "kbc0w2f",
"parent_id": "186y802",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Sleepycoon",
"body": "I think it's safe to say that in the US at least the chocolate chip cookie is the de facto cookie. It's the one that most people immediately think of when hearing \"cookie,\" it's the one that 95% of the results are if you Google image search \"cookie,\" it's *the* cookie.\n\nThe other contender, or more accurately, the runner up, is the sugar cookie. It's the default cookie. The most basic, nondescript, blank canvas of a cookie out there. It's a classic for holidays, decorating, and the cookie that most cookie flavored things are based on.\n\nThe basic version of these two cookies are very similar. They're both flour, baking soda, salt, softened butter, egg, vanilla, and sugar in similar quantities. The only two notable differences are the chocolate chips and that sugar cookies are made with white sugar and chocolate chip cookies are made with brown sugar.\n\nIntuition would say that the integral difference in basic sugar cookies and *chocolate chip* cookies is *chocolate chips*. It's in the name, it's the iconic chip-in-cookie look, it's the textural variety of crunchy-on-the-outside melty-on-the-inside chunks in your cookie, it's the difference in vanilla and sugar flavored vs vanilla, sugar, and chocolate flavored. Obviously the chocolate chips are what make the chocolate chip cookie!\n\nI posit, though, that if I were to ask someone to describe two cookies, one a classic chocolate chip cookie recipe but *without* the chips and one a classic sugar cookie recipe but *with* chocolate chips added, most people would say something along the lines of, \"This is a sugar cookie with chocolate chips, and this chocolate chip cookie has no chocolate chips in it.\"\n\nThe look, feel, texture, and taste of the brown sugar cookie base is iconic and recognizable enough that a brown sugar cookie will generally be identified as a chocolate chip cookie even without the chocolate chips because it's the brown sugar, not the chocolate chips, that give it most of its defining traits. In the same way, the dough base is so integral that even though \"chocolate chip cookie\" simply implies a cookie with chocolate chips most people would not call a cookie with chocolate chips a chocolate chip cookie if it wasn't a brown sugar cookie with chocolate chips.\n\nI haven't had the opportunity to blind test my hypothesis, so I thought I'd lay my chips on the table and see if anyone on here can give me a compelling reason as to why I'm incorrect.",
"date": "2023-11-29",
"id": "186y802",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 286,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The integral ingredient to chocolate chip cookies is brown sugar, not chocolate chips.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/186y802/cmv_the_integral_ingredient_to_chocolate_chip/"
},
{
"author": "Bubblegum-N-Orgasms",
"body": "The vanilla flavoring is my favorite part!",
"date": "2023-11-29",
"id": "kbcmawt",
"parent_id": "186y802",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Sleepycoon",
"body": "I think it's safe to say that in the US at least the chocolate chip cookie is the de facto cookie. It's the one that most people immediately think of when hearing \"cookie,\" it's the one that 95% of the results are if you Google image search \"cookie,\" it's *the* cookie.\n\nThe other contender, or more accurately, the runner up, is the sugar cookie. It's the default cookie. The most basic, nondescript, blank canvas of a cookie out there. It's a classic for holidays, decorating, and the cookie that most cookie flavored things are based on.\n\nThe basic version of these two cookies are very similar. They're both flour, baking soda, salt, softened butter, egg, vanilla, and sugar in similar quantities. The only two notable differences are the chocolate chips and that sugar cookies are made with white sugar and chocolate chip cookies are made with brown sugar.\n\nIntuition would say that the integral difference in basic sugar cookies and *chocolate chip* cookies is *chocolate chips*. It's in the name, it's the iconic chip-in-cookie look, it's the textural variety of crunchy-on-the-outside melty-on-the-inside chunks in your cookie, it's the difference in vanilla and sugar flavored vs vanilla, sugar, and chocolate flavored. Obviously the chocolate chips are what make the chocolate chip cookie!\n\nI posit, though, that if I were to ask someone to describe two cookies, one a classic chocolate chip cookie recipe but *without* the chips and one a classic sugar cookie recipe but *with* chocolate chips added, most people would say something along the lines of, \"This is a sugar cookie with chocolate chips, and this chocolate chip cookie has no chocolate chips in it.\"\n\nThe look, feel, texture, and taste of the brown sugar cookie base is iconic and recognizable enough that a brown sugar cookie will generally be identified as a chocolate chip cookie even without the chocolate chips because it's the brown sugar, not the chocolate chips, that give it most of its defining traits. In the same way, the dough base is so integral that even though \"chocolate chip cookie\" simply implies a cookie with chocolate chips most people would not call a cookie with chocolate chips a chocolate chip cookie if it wasn't a brown sugar cookie with chocolate chips.\n\nI haven't had the opportunity to blind test my hypothesis, so I thought I'd lay my chips on the table and see if anyone on here can give me a compelling reason as to why I'm incorrect.",
"date": "2023-11-29",
"id": "186y802",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 286,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The integral ingredient to chocolate chip cookies is brown sugar, not chocolate chips.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/186y802/cmv_the_integral_ingredient_to_chocolate_chip/"
},
{
"author": "LowerAnt7017",
"body": "I’ve subbed honey for brown sugar and nobody noticed a lack of brown sugar or thought they were anything different than a really good choc chip cookie. They actually turned out a little more chewy which I prefer.",
"date": "2023-11-29",
"id": "kbcmxlm",
"parent_id": "186y802",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Sleepycoon",
"body": "I think it's safe to say that in the US at least the chocolate chip cookie is the de facto cookie. It's the one that most people immediately think of when hearing \"cookie,\" it's the one that 95% of the results are if you Google image search \"cookie,\" it's *the* cookie.\n\nThe other contender, or more accurately, the runner up, is the sugar cookie. It's the default cookie. The most basic, nondescript, blank canvas of a cookie out there. It's a classic for holidays, decorating, and the cookie that most cookie flavored things are based on.\n\nThe basic version of these two cookies are very similar. They're both flour, baking soda, salt, softened butter, egg, vanilla, and sugar in similar quantities. The only two notable differences are the chocolate chips and that sugar cookies are made with white sugar and chocolate chip cookies are made with brown sugar.\n\nIntuition would say that the integral difference in basic sugar cookies and *chocolate chip* cookies is *chocolate chips*. It's in the name, it's the iconic chip-in-cookie look, it's the textural variety of crunchy-on-the-outside melty-on-the-inside chunks in your cookie, it's the difference in vanilla and sugar flavored vs vanilla, sugar, and chocolate flavored. Obviously the chocolate chips are what make the chocolate chip cookie!\n\nI posit, though, that if I were to ask someone to describe two cookies, one a classic chocolate chip cookie recipe but *without* the chips and one a classic sugar cookie recipe but *with* chocolate chips added, most people would say something along the lines of, \"This is a sugar cookie with chocolate chips, and this chocolate chip cookie has no chocolate chips in it.\"\n\nThe look, feel, texture, and taste of the brown sugar cookie base is iconic and recognizable enough that a brown sugar cookie will generally be identified as a chocolate chip cookie even without the chocolate chips because it's the brown sugar, not the chocolate chips, that give it most of its defining traits. In the same way, the dough base is so integral that even though \"chocolate chip cookie\" simply implies a cookie with chocolate chips most people would not call a cookie with chocolate chips a chocolate chip cookie if it wasn't a brown sugar cookie with chocolate chips.\n\nI haven't had the opportunity to blind test my hypothesis, so I thought I'd lay my chips on the table and see if anyone on here can give me a compelling reason as to why I'm incorrect.",
"date": "2023-11-29",
"id": "186y802",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 286,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The integral ingredient to chocolate chip cookies is brown sugar, not chocolate chips.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/186y802/cmv_the_integral_ingredient_to_chocolate_chip/"
},
{
"author": "StarChild413",
"body": "They both could be integral in different ways, chocolate chips make a chocolate chip cookie a chocolate chip cookie, brown sugar makes a good chocolate chip cookie a good chocolate chip cookie",
"date": "2023-11-29",
"id": "kbcve5m",
"parent_id": "186y802",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Sleepycoon",
"body": "I think it's safe to say that in the US at least the chocolate chip cookie is the de facto cookie. It's the one that most people immediately think of when hearing \"cookie,\" it's the one that 95% of the results are if you Google image search \"cookie,\" it's *the* cookie.\n\nThe other contender, or more accurately, the runner up, is the sugar cookie. It's the default cookie. The most basic, nondescript, blank canvas of a cookie out there. It's a classic for holidays, decorating, and the cookie that most cookie flavored things are based on.\n\nThe basic version of these two cookies are very similar. They're both flour, baking soda, salt, softened butter, egg, vanilla, and sugar in similar quantities. The only two notable differences are the chocolate chips and that sugar cookies are made with white sugar and chocolate chip cookies are made with brown sugar.\n\nIntuition would say that the integral difference in basic sugar cookies and *chocolate chip* cookies is *chocolate chips*. It's in the name, it's the iconic chip-in-cookie look, it's the textural variety of crunchy-on-the-outside melty-on-the-inside chunks in your cookie, it's the difference in vanilla and sugar flavored vs vanilla, sugar, and chocolate flavored. Obviously the chocolate chips are what make the chocolate chip cookie!\n\nI posit, though, that if I were to ask someone to describe two cookies, one a classic chocolate chip cookie recipe but *without* the chips and one a classic sugar cookie recipe but *with* chocolate chips added, most people would say something along the lines of, \"This is a sugar cookie with chocolate chips, and this chocolate chip cookie has no chocolate chips in it.\"\n\nThe look, feel, texture, and taste of the brown sugar cookie base is iconic and recognizable enough that a brown sugar cookie will generally be identified as a chocolate chip cookie even without the chocolate chips because it's the brown sugar, not the chocolate chips, that give it most of its defining traits. In the same way, the dough base is so integral that even though \"chocolate chip cookie\" simply implies a cookie with chocolate chips most people would not call a cookie with chocolate chips a chocolate chip cookie if it wasn't a brown sugar cookie with chocolate chips.\n\nI haven't had the opportunity to blind test my hypothesis, so I thought I'd lay my chips on the table and see if anyone on here can give me a compelling reason as to why I'm incorrect.",
"date": "2023-11-29",
"id": "186y802",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 286,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The integral ingredient to chocolate chip cookies is brown sugar, not chocolate chips.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/186y802/cmv_the_integral_ingredient_to_chocolate_chip/"
},
{
"author": "AUniquePerspective",
"body": "I'm going to have to disagree. The integral difference between the sugar cookie and the chocolate chip cookie is the flour to fat ratio. Sugar cookies are rolled or pressed because they're made from firm enough dough. Chocolate chip cookies are drop cookies and whatever way you drop their very sticky dough that's almost a borderline batter doesn't really matter because they have insufficient structural integrity to hold their shape in cooking: they're turning out roundish no matter what.",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "kbdkkhq",
"parent_id": "186y802",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Sleepycoon",
"body": "I think it's safe to say that in the US at least the chocolate chip cookie is the de facto cookie. It's the one that most people immediately think of when hearing \"cookie,\" it's the one that 95% of the results are if you Google image search \"cookie,\" it's *the* cookie.\n\nThe other contender, or more accurately, the runner up, is the sugar cookie. It's the default cookie. The most basic, nondescript, blank canvas of a cookie out there. It's a classic for holidays, decorating, and the cookie that most cookie flavored things are based on.\n\nThe basic version of these two cookies are very similar. They're both flour, baking soda, salt, softened butter, egg, vanilla, and sugar in similar quantities. The only two notable differences are the chocolate chips and that sugar cookies are made with white sugar and chocolate chip cookies are made with brown sugar.\n\nIntuition would say that the integral difference in basic sugar cookies and *chocolate chip* cookies is *chocolate chips*. It's in the name, it's the iconic chip-in-cookie look, it's the textural variety of crunchy-on-the-outside melty-on-the-inside chunks in your cookie, it's the difference in vanilla and sugar flavored vs vanilla, sugar, and chocolate flavored. Obviously the chocolate chips are what make the chocolate chip cookie!\n\nI posit, though, that if I were to ask someone to describe two cookies, one a classic chocolate chip cookie recipe but *without* the chips and one a classic sugar cookie recipe but *with* chocolate chips added, most people would say something along the lines of, \"This is a sugar cookie with chocolate chips, and this chocolate chip cookie has no chocolate chips in it.\"\n\nThe look, feel, texture, and taste of the brown sugar cookie base is iconic and recognizable enough that a brown sugar cookie will generally be identified as a chocolate chip cookie even without the chocolate chips because it's the brown sugar, not the chocolate chips, that give it most of its defining traits. In the same way, the dough base is so integral that even though \"chocolate chip cookie\" simply implies a cookie with chocolate chips most people would not call a cookie with chocolate chips a chocolate chip cookie if it wasn't a brown sugar cookie with chocolate chips.\n\nI haven't had the opportunity to blind test my hypothesis, so I thought I'd lay my chips on the table and see if anyone on here can give me a compelling reason as to why I'm incorrect.",
"date": "2023-11-29",
"id": "186y802",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 286,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The integral ingredient to chocolate chip cookies is brown sugar, not chocolate chips.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/186y802/cmv_the_integral_ingredient_to_chocolate_chip/"
},
{
"author": "Nivek8789",
"body": "Well you still need chips or chunks",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "kbe1txz",
"parent_id": "186y802",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Sleepycoon",
"body": "I think it's safe to say that in the US at least the chocolate chip cookie is the de facto cookie. It's the one that most people immediately think of when hearing \"cookie,\" it's the one that 95% of the results are if you Google image search \"cookie,\" it's *the* cookie.\n\nThe other contender, or more accurately, the runner up, is the sugar cookie. It's the default cookie. The most basic, nondescript, blank canvas of a cookie out there. It's a classic for holidays, decorating, and the cookie that most cookie flavored things are based on.\n\nThe basic version of these two cookies are very similar. They're both flour, baking soda, salt, softened butter, egg, vanilla, and sugar in similar quantities. The only two notable differences are the chocolate chips and that sugar cookies are made with white sugar and chocolate chip cookies are made with brown sugar.\n\nIntuition would say that the integral difference in basic sugar cookies and *chocolate chip* cookies is *chocolate chips*. It's in the name, it's the iconic chip-in-cookie look, it's the textural variety of crunchy-on-the-outside melty-on-the-inside chunks in your cookie, it's the difference in vanilla and sugar flavored vs vanilla, sugar, and chocolate flavored. Obviously the chocolate chips are what make the chocolate chip cookie!\n\nI posit, though, that if I were to ask someone to describe two cookies, one a classic chocolate chip cookie recipe but *without* the chips and one a classic sugar cookie recipe but *with* chocolate chips added, most people would say something along the lines of, \"This is a sugar cookie with chocolate chips, and this chocolate chip cookie has no chocolate chips in it.\"\n\nThe look, feel, texture, and taste of the brown sugar cookie base is iconic and recognizable enough that a brown sugar cookie will generally be identified as a chocolate chip cookie even without the chocolate chips because it's the brown sugar, not the chocolate chips, that give it most of its defining traits. In the same way, the dough base is so integral that even though \"chocolate chip cookie\" simply implies a cookie with chocolate chips most people would not call a cookie with chocolate chips a chocolate chip cookie if it wasn't a brown sugar cookie with chocolate chips.\n\nI haven't had the opportunity to blind test my hypothesis, so I thought I'd lay my chips on the table and see if anyone on here can give me a compelling reason as to why I'm incorrect.",
"date": "2023-11-29",
"id": "186y802",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 286,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The integral ingredient to chocolate chip cookies is brown sugar, not chocolate chips.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/186y802/cmv_the_integral_ingredient_to_chocolate_chip/"
},
{
"author": "GThane",
"body": "So my family makes a molasses cookie that is more brown sugar that molasses. You would not call it a chocolate chip cookie because of its brown sugar content. You can also make a cookie with out brown sugar and people would still consider it a cookie, regardless of if it tastes worse or different.",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "kbejepc",
"parent_id": "186y802",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Sleepycoon",
"body": "I think it's safe to say that in the US at least the chocolate chip cookie is the de facto cookie. It's the one that most people immediately think of when hearing \"cookie,\" it's the one that 95% of the results are if you Google image search \"cookie,\" it's *the* cookie.\n\nThe other contender, or more accurately, the runner up, is the sugar cookie. It's the default cookie. The most basic, nondescript, blank canvas of a cookie out there. It's a classic for holidays, decorating, and the cookie that most cookie flavored things are based on.\n\nThe basic version of these two cookies are very similar. They're both flour, baking soda, salt, softened butter, egg, vanilla, and sugar in similar quantities. The only two notable differences are the chocolate chips and that sugar cookies are made with white sugar and chocolate chip cookies are made with brown sugar.\n\nIntuition would say that the integral difference in basic sugar cookies and *chocolate chip* cookies is *chocolate chips*. It's in the name, it's the iconic chip-in-cookie look, it's the textural variety of crunchy-on-the-outside melty-on-the-inside chunks in your cookie, it's the difference in vanilla and sugar flavored vs vanilla, sugar, and chocolate flavored. Obviously the chocolate chips are what make the chocolate chip cookie!\n\nI posit, though, that if I were to ask someone to describe two cookies, one a classic chocolate chip cookie recipe but *without* the chips and one a classic sugar cookie recipe but *with* chocolate chips added, most people would say something along the lines of, \"This is a sugar cookie with chocolate chips, and this chocolate chip cookie has no chocolate chips in it.\"\n\nThe look, feel, texture, and taste of the brown sugar cookie base is iconic and recognizable enough that a brown sugar cookie will generally be identified as a chocolate chip cookie even without the chocolate chips because it's the brown sugar, not the chocolate chips, that give it most of its defining traits. In the same way, the dough base is so integral that even though \"chocolate chip cookie\" simply implies a cookie with chocolate chips most people would not call a cookie with chocolate chips a chocolate chip cookie if it wasn't a brown sugar cookie with chocolate chips.\n\nI haven't had the opportunity to blind test my hypothesis, so I thought I'd lay my chips on the table and see if anyone on here can give me a compelling reason as to why I'm incorrect.",
"date": "2023-11-29",
"id": "186y802",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 286,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The integral ingredient to chocolate chip cookies is brown sugar, not chocolate chips.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/186y802/cmv_the_integral_ingredient_to_chocolate_chip/"
},
{
"author": "chollida1",
"body": "Given that alot of chocolate chip cookie recipes don't have brown sugar this seems like it should be a trivialby provable cmv, no?",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "kbgfixx",
"parent_id": "186y802",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Sleepycoon",
"body": "I think it's safe to say that in the US at least the chocolate chip cookie is the de facto cookie. It's the one that most people immediately think of when hearing \"cookie,\" it's the one that 95% of the results are if you Google image search \"cookie,\" it's *the* cookie.\n\nThe other contender, or more accurately, the runner up, is the sugar cookie. It's the default cookie. The most basic, nondescript, blank canvas of a cookie out there. It's a classic for holidays, decorating, and the cookie that most cookie flavored things are based on.\n\nThe basic version of these two cookies are very similar. They're both flour, baking soda, salt, softened butter, egg, vanilla, and sugar in similar quantities. The only two notable differences are the chocolate chips and that sugar cookies are made with white sugar and chocolate chip cookies are made with brown sugar.\n\nIntuition would say that the integral difference in basic sugar cookies and *chocolate chip* cookies is *chocolate chips*. It's in the name, it's the iconic chip-in-cookie look, it's the textural variety of crunchy-on-the-outside melty-on-the-inside chunks in your cookie, it's the difference in vanilla and sugar flavored vs vanilla, sugar, and chocolate flavored. Obviously the chocolate chips are what make the chocolate chip cookie!\n\nI posit, though, that if I were to ask someone to describe two cookies, one a classic chocolate chip cookie recipe but *without* the chips and one a classic sugar cookie recipe but *with* chocolate chips added, most people would say something along the lines of, \"This is a sugar cookie with chocolate chips, and this chocolate chip cookie has no chocolate chips in it.\"\n\nThe look, feel, texture, and taste of the brown sugar cookie base is iconic and recognizable enough that a brown sugar cookie will generally be identified as a chocolate chip cookie even without the chocolate chips because it's the brown sugar, not the chocolate chips, that give it most of its defining traits. In the same way, the dough base is so integral that even though \"chocolate chip cookie\" simply implies a cookie with chocolate chips most people would not call a cookie with chocolate chips a chocolate chip cookie if it wasn't a brown sugar cookie with chocolate chips.\n\nI haven't had the opportunity to blind test my hypothesis, so I thought I'd lay my chips on the table and see if anyone on here can give me a compelling reason as to why I'm incorrect.",
"date": "2023-11-29",
"id": "186y802",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 286,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The integral ingredient to chocolate chip cookies is brown sugar, not chocolate chips.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/186y802/cmv_the_integral_ingredient_to_chocolate_chip/"
},
{
"author": "Elder_Millennial108",
"body": "Arguing here on behalf of my mom. She will take a perfectly good batch of chocolate chip cookies and pick out ONLY the chocolate chips to eat. Then, like a true monster, she will put the tupperware lid back so the next person is faced with swiss cheese cookies. I think she would say the chips are the integral ingredient.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbmpkku",
"parent_id": "186y802",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Sleepycoon",
"body": "I think it's safe to say that in the US at least the chocolate chip cookie is the de facto cookie. It's the one that most people immediately think of when hearing \"cookie,\" it's the one that 95% of the results are if you Google image search \"cookie,\" it's *the* cookie.\n\nThe other contender, or more accurately, the runner up, is the sugar cookie. It's the default cookie. The most basic, nondescript, blank canvas of a cookie out there. It's a classic for holidays, decorating, and the cookie that most cookie flavored things are based on.\n\nThe basic version of these two cookies are very similar. They're both flour, baking soda, salt, softened butter, egg, vanilla, and sugar in similar quantities. The only two notable differences are the chocolate chips and that sugar cookies are made with white sugar and chocolate chip cookies are made with brown sugar.\n\nIntuition would say that the integral difference in basic sugar cookies and *chocolate chip* cookies is *chocolate chips*. It's in the name, it's the iconic chip-in-cookie look, it's the textural variety of crunchy-on-the-outside melty-on-the-inside chunks in your cookie, it's the difference in vanilla and sugar flavored vs vanilla, sugar, and chocolate flavored. Obviously the chocolate chips are what make the chocolate chip cookie!\n\nI posit, though, that if I were to ask someone to describe two cookies, one a classic chocolate chip cookie recipe but *without* the chips and one a classic sugar cookie recipe but *with* chocolate chips added, most people would say something along the lines of, \"This is a sugar cookie with chocolate chips, and this chocolate chip cookie has no chocolate chips in it.\"\n\nThe look, feel, texture, and taste of the brown sugar cookie base is iconic and recognizable enough that a brown sugar cookie will generally be identified as a chocolate chip cookie even without the chocolate chips because it's the brown sugar, not the chocolate chips, that give it most of its defining traits. In the same way, the dough base is so integral that even though \"chocolate chip cookie\" simply implies a cookie with chocolate chips most people would not call a cookie with chocolate chips a chocolate chip cookie if it wasn't a brown sugar cookie with chocolate chips.\n\nI haven't had the opportunity to blind test my hypothesis, so I thought I'd lay my chips on the table and see if anyone on here can give me a compelling reason as to why I'm incorrect.",
"date": "2023-11-29",
"id": "186y802",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 286,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The integral ingredient to chocolate chip cookies is brown sugar, not chocolate chips.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/186y802/cmv_the_integral_ingredient_to_chocolate_chip/"
},
{
"author": "MobiusCowbell",
"body": "Browned butter 🤝 brown sugar",
"date": "2023-12-02",
"id": "kbp2qvu",
"parent_id": "186y802",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Sleepycoon",
"body": "I think it's safe to say that in the US at least the chocolate chip cookie is the de facto cookie. It's the one that most people immediately think of when hearing \"cookie,\" it's the one that 95% of the results are if you Google image search \"cookie,\" it's *the* cookie.\n\nThe other contender, or more accurately, the runner up, is the sugar cookie. It's the default cookie. The most basic, nondescript, blank canvas of a cookie out there. It's a classic for holidays, decorating, and the cookie that most cookie flavored things are based on.\n\nThe basic version of these two cookies are very similar. They're both flour, baking soda, salt, softened butter, egg, vanilla, and sugar in similar quantities. The only two notable differences are the chocolate chips and that sugar cookies are made with white sugar and chocolate chip cookies are made with brown sugar.\n\nIntuition would say that the integral difference in basic sugar cookies and *chocolate chip* cookies is *chocolate chips*. It's in the name, it's the iconic chip-in-cookie look, it's the textural variety of crunchy-on-the-outside melty-on-the-inside chunks in your cookie, it's the difference in vanilla and sugar flavored vs vanilla, sugar, and chocolate flavored. Obviously the chocolate chips are what make the chocolate chip cookie!\n\nI posit, though, that if I were to ask someone to describe two cookies, one a classic chocolate chip cookie recipe but *without* the chips and one a classic sugar cookie recipe but *with* chocolate chips added, most people would say something along the lines of, \"This is a sugar cookie with chocolate chips, and this chocolate chip cookie has no chocolate chips in it.\"\n\nThe look, feel, texture, and taste of the brown sugar cookie base is iconic and recognizable enough that a brown sugar cookie will generally be identified as a chocolate chip cookie even without the chocolate chips because it's the brown sugar, not the chocolate chips, that give it most of its defining traits. In the same way, the dough base is so integral that even though \"chocolate chip cookie\" simply implies a cookie with chocolate chips most people would not call a cookie with chocolate chips a chocolate chip cookie if it wasn't a brown sugar cookie with chocolate chips.\n\nI haven't had the opportunity to blind test my hypothesis, so I thought I'd lay my chips on the table and see if anyone on here can give me a compelling reason as to why I'm incorrect.",
"date": "2023-11-29",
"id": "186y802",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 286,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The integral ingredient to chocolate chip cookies is brown sugar, not chocolate chips.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/186y802/cmv_the_integral_ingredient_to_chocolate_chip/"
},
{
"author": "AdamSchiffIsaPedo",
"body": "No. The integral ingredient in a chocolate chip cookie is a chocolate chip. If you put chocolate chips in any cookie, it is a chocolate chip cookie. It might not be what you first imagine when somebody says chocolate chip cookie, but it will technically be a chocolate chip cookie. If you made sugar cookies and put chocolate chips in them, they would be weird tasting chocolate chip cookies. You are correct that brown sugar gives the flavor that most people think about when they think about chocolate chip cookies, but it is not mandatory to fall in that category.",
"date": "2023-12-03",
"id": "kbwt49f",
"parent_id": "186y802",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
]
]
| moderate |
[
{
"author": "Sleepycoon",
"body": "I think it's safe to say that in the US at least the chocolate chip cookie is the de facto cookie. It's the one that most people immediately think of when hearing \"cookie,\" it's the one that 95% of the results are if you Google image search \"cookie,\" it's *the* cookie.\n\nThe other contender, or more accurately, the runner up, is the sugar cookie. It's the default cookie. The most basic, nondescript, blank canvas of a cookie out there. It's a classic for holidays, decorating, and the cookie that most cookie flavored things are based on.\n\nThe basic version of these two cookies are very similar. They're both flour, baking soda, salt, softened butter, egg, vanilla, and sugar in similar quantities. The only two notable differences are the chocolate chips and that sugar cookies are made with white sugar and chocolate chip cookies are made with brown sugar.\n\nIntuition would say that the integral difference in basic sugar cookies and *chocolate chip* cookies is *chocolate chips*. It's in the name, it's the iconic chip-in-cookie look, it's the textural variety of crunchy-on-the-outside melty-on-the-inside chunks in your cookie, it's the difference in vanilla and sugar flavored vs vanilla, sugar, and chocolate flavored. Obviously the chocolate chips are what make the chocolate chip cookie!\n\nI posit, though, that if I were to ask someone to describe two cookies, one a classic chocolate chip cookie recipe but *without* the chips and one a classic sugar cookie recipe but *with* chocolate chips added, most people would say something along the lines of, \"This is a sugar cookie with chocolate chips, and this chocolate chip cookie has no chocolate chips in it.\"\n\nThe look, feel, texture, and taste of the brown sugar cookie base is iconic and recognizable enough that a brown sugar cookie will generally be identified as a chocolate chip cookie even without the chocolate chips because it's the brown sugar, not the chocolate chips, that give it most of its defining traits. In the same way, the dough base is so integral that even though \"chocolate chip cookie\" simply implies a cookie with chocolate chips most people would not call a cookie with chocolate chips a chocolate chip cookie if it wasn't a brown sugar cookie with chocolate chips.\n\nI haven't had the opportunity to blind test my hypothesis, so I thought I'd lay my chips on the table and see if anyone on here can give me a compelling reason as to why I'm incorrect.",
"date": "2023-11-29",
"id": "186y802",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 286,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The integral ingredient to chocolate chip cookies is brown sugar, not chocolate chips.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/186y802/cmv_the_integral_ingredient_to_chocolate_chip/"
},
{
"author": "LentilDrink",
"body": "Chips Ahoy is a super classic chocolate chip cookie.\n\nThe ingredients do not contain any brown sugar ahttps://www.mondelezinternationalfoodservice.com/Product/ProductDetails/ProductId=10044000052222 and it's a very standard prepackaged chocolate chip cookie.",
"date": "2023-11-29",
"id": "kbb85gj",
"parent_id": "186y802",
"score": 83,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Sleepycoon",
"body": "!delta\n\nHard to argue with probably the most widely known prepackaged chocolate chip cookie, although I do have caveats.\n\nFirst, cheapest available ingredients, most allowable shortcuts, cut quality to serve the bottom line, screw freshness these things need to stay edible forever, prepackaged, mass produced food isn't what I'd call the best example of the ideal form of a food.\n\nSecond, the chewy chips ahoy which I would argue are closer to home baked chocolate chip cookies and which is, at least in my experience, generally greatly preferred over the original [does contain molasses](https://www.mondelezinternationalfoodservice.com/Product/ProductDetails/ProductId=10044000047365).",
"date": "2023-11-29",
"id": "kbbgnc0",
"parent_id": "kbb85gj",
"score": 55,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "DeltaBot",
"body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/LentilDrink ([52∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/LentilDrink)).\n\n^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
"date": "2023-11-29",
"id": "kbbgt7a",
"parent_id": "kbbgnc0",
"score": 6,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
]
| [
[
{
"author": "Sleepycoon",
"body": "I think it's safe to say that in the US at least the chocolate chip cookie is the de facto cookie. It's the one that most people immediately think of when hearing \"cookie,\" it's the one that 95% of the results are if you Google image search \"cookie,\" it's *the* cookie.\n\nThe other contender, or more accurately, the runner up, is the sugar cookie. It's the default cookie. The most basic, nondescript, blank canvas of a cookie out there. It's a classic for holidays, decorating, and the cookie that most cookie flavored things are based on.\n\nThe basic version of these two cookies are very similar. They're both flour, baking soda, salt, softened butter, egg, vanilla, and sugar in similar quantities. The only two notable differences are the chocolate chips and that sugar cookies are made with white sugar and chocolate chip cookies are made with brown sugar.\n\nIntuition would say that the integral difference in basic sugar cookies and *chocolate chip* cookies is *chocolate chips*. It's in the name, it's the iconic chip-in-cookie look, it's the textural variety of crunchy-on-the-outside melty-on-the-inside chunks in your cookie, it's the difference in vanilla and sugar flavored vs vanilla, sugar, and chocolate flavored. Obviously the chocolate chips are what make the chocolate chip cookie!\n\nI posit, though, that if I were to ask someone to describe two cookies, one a classic chocolate chip cookie recipe but *without* the chips and one a classic sugar cookie recipe but *with* chocolate chips added, most people would say something along the lines of, \"This is a sugar cookie with chocolate chips, and this chocolate chip cookie has no chocolate chips in it.\"\n\nThe look, feel, texture, and taste of the brown sugar cookie base is iconic and recognizable enough that a brown sugar cookie will generally be identified as a chocolate chip cookie even without the chocolate chips because it's the brown sugar, not the chocolate chips, that give it most of its defining traits. In the same way, the dough base is so integral that even though \"chocolate chip cookie\" simply implies a cookie with chocolate chips most people would not call a cookie with chocolate chips a chocolate chip cookie if it wasn't a brown sugar cookie with chocolate chips.\n\nI haven't had the opportunity to blind test my hypothesis, so I thought I'd lay my chips on the table and see if anyone on here can give me a compelling reason as to why I'm incorrect.",
"date": "2023-11-29",
"id": "186y802",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 286,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The integral ingredient to chocolate chip cookies is brown sugar, not chocolate chips.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/186y802/cmv_the_integral_ingredient_to_chocolate_chip/"
},
{
"author": "Lylieth",
"body": "What is a chocolate chip cookie without chocolate chips?\n\nI argue they're just \"[brown surgar cookies](https://sallysbakingaddiction.com/chewy-brown-sugar-cookies/)\".",
"date": "2023-11-29",
"id": "kbazz9v",
"parent_id": "186y802",
"score": 24,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Sleepycoon",
"body": "And I'd argue that if you made brown sugar cookies and handed them out most people would think, \"This idiot forgot to put chocolate chips in this chocolate chip cookie!\" before they think, \"Oh boy a brown sugar cookie!\"",
"date": "2023-11-29",
"id": "kbb7w9x",
"parent_id": "kbazz9v",
"score": -6,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Sleepycoon",
"body": "I think it's safe to say that in the US at least the chocolate chip cookie is the de facto cookie. It's the one that most people immediately think of when hearing \"cookie,\" it's the one that 95% of the results are if you Google image search \"cookie,\" it's *the* cookie.\n\nThe other contender, or more accurately, the runner up, is the sugar cookie. It's the default cookie. The most basic, nondescript, blank canvas of a cookie out there. It's a classic for holidays, decorating, and the cookie that most cookie flavored things are based on.\n\nThe basic version of these two cookies are very similar. They're both flour, baking soda, salt, softened butter, egg, vanilla, and sugar in similar quantities. The only two notable differences are the chocolate chips and that sugar cookies are made with white sugar and chocolate chip cookies are made with brown sugar.\n\nIntuition would say that the integral difference in basic sugar cookies and *chocolate chip* cookies is *chocolate chips*. It's in the name, it's the iconic chip-in-cookie look, it's the textural variety of crunchy-on-the-outside melty-on-the-inside chunks in your cookie, it's the difference in vanilla and sugar flavored vs vanilla, sugar, and chocolate flavored. Obviously the chocolate chips are what make the chocolate chip cookie!\n\nI posit, though, that if I were to ask someone to describe two cookies, one a classic chocolate chip cookie recipe but *without* the chips and one a classic sugar cookie recipe but *with* chocolate chips added, most people would say something along the lines of, \"This is a sugar cookie with chocolate chips, and this chocolate chip cookie has no chocolate chips in it.\"\n\nThe look, feel, texture, and taste of the brown sugar cookie base is iconic and recognizable enough that a brown sugar cookie will generally be identified as a chocolate chip cookie even without the chocolate chips because it's the brown sugar, not the chocolate chips, that give it most of its defining traits. In the same way, the dough base is so integral that even though \"chocolate chip cookie\" simply implies a cookie with chocolate chips most people would not call a cookie with chocolate chips a chocolate chip cookie if it wasn't a brown sugar cookie with chocolate chips.\n\nI haven't had the opportunity to blind test my hypothesis, so I thought I'd lay my chips on the table and see if anyone on here can give me a compelling reason as to why I'm incorrect.",
"date": "2023-11-29",
"id": "186y802",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 286,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The integral ingredient to chocolate chip cookies is brown sugar, not chocolate chips.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/186y802/cmv_the_integral_ingredient_to_chocolate_chip/"
},
{
"author": "muyamable",
"body": "If you ask someone if they want a chocolate chip cookie and they say yes, and you give them a brown sugar cookie without chocolate chips, they're going to be confused because you didn't give them a chocolate chip cookie. \n\nIf you give them a regular sugar cookie with chocolate chips, they might be surprised because it's a non-traditional kind of chocolate chip cookie, but they won't be confused as to why you called it a chocolate chip cookie.",
"date": "2023-11-29",
"id": "kbb2hm8",
"parent_id": "186y802",
"score": 120,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Sleepycoon",
"body": "Would they be confused about what I handed them or ask why I made a sugar cookie with brown sugar, or would they say something more like, \"you forgot to add the chocolate chips.\"?",
"date": "2023-11-29",
"id": "kbb3gta",
"parent_id": "kbb2hm8",
"score": 8,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Sleepycoon",
"body": "I think it's safe to say that in the US at least the chocolate chip cookie is the de facto cookie. It's the one that most people immediately think of when hearing \"cookie,\" it's the one that 95% of the results are if you Google image search \"cookie,\" it's *the* cookie.\n\nThe other contender, or more accurately, the runner up, is the sugar cookie. It's the default cookie. The most basic, nondescript, blank canvas of a cookie out there. It's a classic for holidays, decorating, and the cookie that most cookie flavored things are based on.\n\nThe basic version of these two cookies are very similar. They're both flour, baking soda, salt, softened butter, egg, vanilla, and sugar in similar quantities. The only two notable differences are the chocolate chips and that sugar cookies are made with white sugar and chocolate chip cookies are made with brown sugar.\n\nIntuition would say that the integral difference in basic sugar cookies and *chocolate chip* cookies is *chocolate chips*. It's in the name, it's the iconic chip-in-cookie look, it's the textural variety of crunchy-on-the-outside melty-on-the-inside chunks in your cookie, it's the difference in vanilla and sugar flavored vs vanilla, sugar, and chocolate flavored. Obviously the chocolate chips are what make the chocolate chip cookie!\n\nI posit, though, that if I were to ask someone to describe two cookies, one a classic chocolate chip cookie recipe but *without* the chips and one a classic sugar cookie recipe but *with* chocolate chips added, most people would say something along the lines of, \"This is a sugar cookie with chocolate chips, and this chocolate chip cookie has no chocolate chips in it.\"\n\nThe look, feel, texture, and taste of the brown sugar cookie base is iconic and recognizable enough that a brown sugar cookie will generally be identified as a chocolate chip cookie even without the chocolate chips because it's the brown sugar, not the chocolate chips, that give it most of its defining traits. In the same way, the dough base is so integral that even though \"chocolate chip cookie\" simply implies a cookie with chocolate chips most people would not call a cookie with chocolate chips a chocolate chip cookie if it wasn't a brown sugar cookie with chocolate chips.\n\nI haven't had the opportunity to blind test my hypothesis, so I thought I'd lay my chips on the table and see if anyone on here can give me a compelling reason as to why I'm incorrect.",
"date": "2023-11-29",
"id": "186y802",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 286,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The integral ingredient to chocolate chip cookies is brown sugar, not chocolate chips.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/186y802/cmv_the_integral_ingredient_to_chocolate_chip/"
},
{
"author": "blastzone24",
"body": "If you made two batches of cookies, one a sugar cookie recipe and added chocolate chips, people would say, \"what a weird chocolate chip cookie\"\n\nand then you made a chocolate chip cookie but left out the chocolate chips, people would say \"what a weird sugar cookie\" \n\nArguing that the second is closer to a true chocolate chip recipe than the fist will get you a blank stare from most people and a \"but it didn't have chocolate chips\"",
"date": "2023-11-29",
"id": "kbb2oc4",
"parent_id": "186y802",
"score": 11,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Sleepycoon",
"body": "If I offer someone a chocolate chip cookie and they're anticipating a chocolate chip cookie then I hand them a white sugar chocolate chip cookie it won't be what they had anticipated. If I handed them a brown sugar cookie, it won't be what they anticipated. The first is definitionally a chocolate chip cookie, so they'd accept it as such, but it won't be what they wanted.\n\nIf I had handed them a brown sugar cookie after offering a chocolate chip cookie I don't think most people would identify it as a brown sugar cookie before simply thinking, \"this one didn't get any chips in it.\"\n\nI think both are equally distant from the general expectation of a chocolate chip cookie.",
"date": "2023-11-29",
"id": "kbbb975",
"parent_id": "kbb2oc4",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Sleepycoon",
"body": "I think it's safe to say that in the US at least the chocolate chip cookie is the de facto cookie. It's the one that most people immediately think of when hearing \"cookie,\" it's the one that 95% of the results are if you Google image search \"cookie,\" it's *the* cookie.\n\nThe other contender, or more accurately, the runner up, is the sugar cookie. It's the default cookie. The most basic, nondescript, blank canvas of a cookie out there. It's a classic for holidays, decorating, and the cookie that most cookie flavored things are based on.\n\nThe basic version of these two cookies are very similar. They're both flour, baking soda, salt, softened butter, egg, vanilla, and sugar in similar quantities. The only two notable differences are the chocolate chips and that sugar cookies are made with white sugar and chocolate chip cookies are made with brown sugar.\n\nIntuition would say that the integral difference in basic sugar cookies and *chocolate chip* cookies is *chocolate chips*. It's in the name, it's the iconic chip-in-cookie look, it's the textural variety of crunchy-on-the-outside melty-on-the-inside chunks in your cookie, it's the difference in vanilla and sugar flavored vs vanilla, sugar, and chocolate flavored. Obviously the chocolate chips are what make the chocolate chip cookie!\n\nI posit, though, that if I were to ask someone to describe two cookies, one a classic chocolate chip cookie recipe but *without* the chips and one a classic sugar cookie recipe but *with* chocolate chips added, most people would say something along the lines of, \"This is a sugar cookie with chocolate chips, and this chocolate chip cookie has no chocolate chips in it.\"\n\nThe look, feel, texture, and taste of the brown sugar cookie base is iconic and recognizable enough that a brown sugar cookie will generally be identified as a chocolate chip cookie even without the chocolate chips because it's the brown sugar, not the chocolate chips, that give it most of its defining traits. In the same way, the dough base is so integral that even though \"chocolate chip cookie\" simply implies a cookie with chocolate chips most people would not call a cookie with chocolate chips a chocolate chip cookie if it wasn't a brown sugar cookie with chocolate chips.\n\nI haven't had the opportunity to blind test my hypothesis, so I thought I'd lay my chips on the table and see if anyone on here can give me a compelling reason as to why I'm incorrect.",
"date": "2023-11-29",
"id": "186y802",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 286,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The integral ingredient to chocolate chip cookies is brown sugar, not chocolate chips.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/186y802/cmv_the_integral_ingredient_to_chocolate_chip/"
},
{
"author": "sawdeanz",
"body": "Uh, no. If you put chocolate chips in a sugar cookie recipe 95% of people will call it a chocolate chip cookie. Hands down. It’s not even close. I doubt the average person would even know that they are normally made with brown sugar. Go on. Try it. Ask people on the grocery store to name the ingredients in a chocolate chip cookie. I bet less than half would specifically call out brown sugar. They would think and say “idk, flour, eggs, sugar, chocolate chips, probably baking soda, etc”\n\nIt’s possible you are factually right if you were to ask a panel of bakers, but that’s not the view you presented. You stated that intuitive and popular view is that brown sugar is the defining ingredient and that is wrong simply because most people are not familiar enough with baking to even know the difference. \n\nBut there are reasons to question your statement on a factual basis too. There are dozens if not hundreds of variations of chocolate chip cookies. Vegan ones, oatmeal ones, flourless ones, chocolate ones. They may or may not have brown sugar. But what they do all share the same name…. “Something something chocolate chip cookie.” What is your source that a chocolate chip cookie has to have brown sugar?",
"date": "2023-11-29",
"id": "kbb33pg",
"parent_id": "186y802",
"score": 20,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "hikerchick29",
"body": "The point OP is making isn’t that the chips aren’t necessary. I think they’re trying to say they aren’t the secret to good cookies.",
"date": "2023-11-29",
"id": "kbb6j85",
"parent_id": "kbb33pg",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Sleepycoon",
"body": "I think it's safe to say that in the US at least the chocolate chip cookie is the de facto cookie. It's the one that most people immediately think of when hearing \"cookie,\" it's the one that 95% of the results are if you Google image search \"cookie,\" it's *the* cookie.\n\nThe other contender, or more accurately, the runner up, is the sugar cookie. It's the default cookie. The most basic, nondescript, blank canvas of a cookie out there. It's a classic for holidays, decorating, and the cookie that most cookie flavored things are based on.\n\nThe basic version of these two cookies are very similar. They're both flour, baking soda, salt, softened butter, egg, vanilla, and sugar in similar quantities. The only two notable differences are the chocolate chips and that sugar cookies are made with white sugar and chocolate chip cookies are made with brown sugar.\n\nIntuition would say that the integral difference in basic sugar cookies and *chocolate chip* cookies is *chocolate chips*. It's in the name, it's the iconic chip-in-cookie look, it's the textural variety of crunchy-on-the-outside melty-on-the-inside chunks in your cookie, it's the difference in vanilla and sugar flavored vs vanilla, sugar, and chocolate flavored. Obviously the chocolate chips are what make the chocolate chip cookie!\n\nI posit, though, that if I were to ask someone to describe two cookies, one a classic chocolate chip cookie recipe but *without* the chips and one a classic sugar cookie recipe but *with* chocolate chips added, most people would say something along the lines of, \"This is a sugar cookie with chocolate chips, and this chocolate chip cookie has no chocolate chips in it.\"\n\nThe look, feel, texture, and taste of the brown sugar cookie base is iconic and recognizable enough that a brown sugar cookie will generally be identified as a chocolate chip cookie even without the chocolate chips because it's the brown sugar, not the chocolate chips, that give it most of its defining traits. In the same way, the dough base is so integral that even though \"chocolate chip cookie\" simply implies a cookie with chocolate chips most people would not call a cookie with chocolate chips a chocolate chip cookie if it wasn't a brown sugar cookie with chocolate chips.\n\nI haven't had the opportunity to blind test my hypothesis, so I thought I'd lay my chips on the table and see if anyone on here can give me a compelling reason as to why I'm incorrect.",
"date": "2023-11-29",
"id": "186y802",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 286,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The integral ingredient to chocolate chip cookies is brown sugar, not chocolate chips.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/186y802/cmv_the_integral_ingredient_to_chocolate_chip/"
},
{
"author": "CallMeCorona1",
"body": "I think to be absolutely sure you need to send everyone on reddit cookies.",
"date": "2023-11-29",
"id": "kbb7aqw",
"parent_id": "186y802",
"score": 8,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Sleepycoon",
"body": "This is the best argument so far. Maybe do a control with some chipless brown sugar cookies, some chocolate chip cookies with a single chip, all the way up to just a solid puck of chocolate. Do a survey, find the upper and lower bounds of what people will identify as a chocolate chip cookie.",
"date": "2023-11-29",
"id": "kbbbmi2",
"parent_id": "kbb7aqw",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Sleepycoon",
"body": "I think it's safe to say that in the US at least the chocolate chip cookie is the de facto cookie. It's the one that most people immediately think of when hearing \"cookie,\" it's the one that 95% of the results are if you Google image search \"cookie,\" it's *the* cookie.\n\nThe other contender, or more accurately, the runner up, is the sugar cookie. It's the default cookie. The most basic, nondescript, blank canvas of a cookie out there. It's a classic for holidays, decorating, and the cookie that most cookie flavored things are based on.\n\nThe basic version of these two cookies are very similar. They're both flour, baking soda, salt, softened butter, egg, vanilla, and sugar in similar quantities. The only two notable differences are the chocolate chips and that sugar cookies are made with white sugar and chocolate chip cookies are made with brown sugar.\n\nIntuition would say that the integral difference in basic sugar cookies and *chocolate chip* cookies is *chocolate chips*. It's in the name, it's the iconic chip-in-cookie look, it's the textural variety of crunchy-on-the-outside melty-on-the-inside chunks in your cookie, it's the difference in vanilla and sugar flavored vs vanilla, sugar, and chocolate flavored. Obviously the chocolate chips are what make the chocolate chip cookie!\n\nI posit, though, that if I were to ask someone to describe two cookies, one a classic chocolate chip cookie recipe but *without* the chips and one a classic sugar cookie recipe but *with* chocolate chips added, most people would say something along the lines of, \"This is a sugar cookie with chocolate chips, and this chocolate chip cookie has no chocolate chips in it.\"\n\nThe look, feel, texture, and taste of the brown sugar cookie base is iconic and recognizable enough that a brown sugar cookie will generally be identified as a chocolate chip cookie even without the chocolate chips because it's the brown sugar, not the chocolate chips, that give it most of its defining traits. In the same way, the dough base is so integral that even though \"chocolate chip cookie\" simply implies a cookie with chocolate chips most people would not call a cookie with chocolate chips a chocolate chip cookie if it wasn't a brown sugar cookie with chocolate chips.\n\nI haven't had the opportunity to blind test my hypothesis, so I thought I'd lay my chips on the table and see if anyone on here can give me a compelling reason as to why I'm incorrect.",
"date": "2023-11-29",
"id": "186y802",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 286,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The integral ingredient to chocolate chip cookies is brown sugar, not chocolate chips.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/186y802/cmv_the_integral_ingredient_to_chocolate_chip/"
},
{
"author": "jatjqtjat",
"body": ">I posit, though, that if I were to ask someone to describe two cookies, one a classic chocolate chip cookie recipe but without the chips and one a classic sugar cookie recipe but with chocolate chips added, most people would say something along the lines of, \"This is a sugar cookie with chocolate chips, and this chocolate chip cookie has no chocolate chips in it.\"\n\nI'll dm you my address, you can mail me some cookies and I will give them to my wife and kids who have not read your post.\n\nfor the sugar cookie with chocolate chips added\n\n* I'm sure my kids will say that they are the chocolate chip cookies. they are 4 and 6. They know what chocolate ships are. These cookies have chocolate chips in them.\n* My wife, I'm fairly sure would say, \"this is an unusual chocolate chip cookie\" or she might say \"what is wrong with this chocolate chip cookie\". These cookies have chocolate chips in them. \n* my mother in law, who is a good cook and very familiarly with many differences recipes might say, \"whoever made this chocolate chip cookies must have run out of brown sugar\"\n\nfor the chocolate chip cookies without chocolates chips.\n\n* I'm sure that nobody in my family would be able to identity these as a common type of cookie. They would say things like, \"what kind of cookie is this\"",
"date": "2023-11-29",
"id": "kbb8fsx",
"parent_id": "186y802",
"score": 7,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Sleepycoon",
"body": "I think it's safe to say that in the US at least the chocolate chip cookie is the de facto cookie. It's the one that most people immediately think of when hearing \"cookie,\" it's the one that 95% of the results are if you Google image search \"cookie,\" it's *the* cookie.\n\nThe other contender, or more accurately, the runner up, is the sugar cookie. It's the default cookie. The most basic, nondescript, blank canvas of a cookie out there. It's a classic for holidays, decorating, and the cookie that most cookie flavored things are based on.\n\nThe basic version of these two cookies are very similar. They're both flour, baking soda, salt, softened butter, egg, vanilla, and sugar in similar quantities. The only two notable differences are the chocolate chips and that sugar cookies are made with white sugar and chocolate chip cookies are made with brown sugar.\n\nIntuition would say that the integral difference in basic sugar cookies and *chocolate chip* cookies is *chocolate chips*. It's in the name, it's the iconic chip-in-cookie look, it's the textural variety of crunchy-on-the-outside melty-on-the-inside chunks in your cookie, it's the difference in vanilla and sugar flavored vs vanilla, sugar, and chocolate flavored. Obviously the chocolate chips are what make the chocolate chip cookie!\n\nI posit, though, that if I were to ask someone to describe two cookies, one a classic chocolate chip cookie recipe but *without* the chips and one a classic sugar cookie recipe but *with* chocolate chips added, most people would say something along the lines of, \"This is a sugar cookie with chocolate chips, and this chocolate chip cookie has no chocolate chips in it.\"\n\nThe look, feel, texture, and taste of the brown sugar cookie base is iconic and recognizable enough that a brown sugar cookie will generally be identified as a chocolate chip cookie even without the chocolate chips because it's the brown sugar, not the chocolate chips, that give it most of its defining traits. In the same way, the dough base is so integral that even though \"chocolate chip cookie\" simply implies a cookie with chocolate chips most people would not call a cookie with chocolate chips a chocolate chip cookie if it wasn't a brown sugar cookie with chocolate chips.\n\nI haven't had the opportunity to blind test my hypothesis, so I thought I'd lay my chips on the table and see if anyone on here can give me a compelling reason as to why I'm incorrect.",
"date": "2023-11-29",
"id": "186y802",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 286,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The integral ingredient to chocolate chip cookies is brown sugar, not chocolate chips.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/186y802/cmv_the_integral_ingredient_to_chocolate_chip/"
},
{
"author": "Bobbob34",
"body": ">The basic version of these two cookies are very similar. They're both flour, baking soda, salt, softened butter, egg, vanilla, and sugar in similar quantities. The only two notable differences are the chocolate chips and that sugar cookies are made with white sugar and chocolate chip cookies are made with brown sugar.\r\n\nYou're confusing a drop cookie and a rolled cookie which are very different. It's not just brown sugar. I rarely use brown sugar and I make great choc chip cookies. Sugar cookies are a different animal.",
"date": "2023-11-29",
"id": "kbba58j",
"parent_id": "186y802",
"score": 4,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Sleepycoon",
"body": "I think it's safe to say that in the US at least the chocolate chip cookie is the de facto cookie. It's the one that most people immediately think of when hearing \"cookie,\" it's the one that 95% of the results are if you Google image search \"cookie,\" it's *the* cookie.\n\nThe other contender, or more accurately, the runner up, is the sugar cookie. It's the default cookie. The most basic, nondescript, blank canvas of a cookie out there. It's a classic for holidays, decorating, and the cookie that most cookie flavored things are based on.\n\nThe basic version of these two cookies are very similar. They're both flour, baking soda, salt, softened butter, egg, vanilla, and sugar in similar quantities. The only two notable differences are the chocolate chips and that sugar cookies are made with white sugar and chocolate chip cookies are made with brown sugar.\n\nIntuition would say that the integral difference in basic sugar cookies and *chocolate chip* cookies is *chocolate chips*. It's in the name, it's the iconic chip-in-cookie look, it's the textural variety of crunchy-on-the-outside melty-on-the-inside chunks in your cookie, it's the difference in vanilla and sugar flavored vs vanilla, sugar, and chocolate flavored. Obviously the chocolate chips are what make the chocolate chip cookie!\n\nI posit, though, that if I were to ask someone to describe two cookies, one a classic chocolate chip cookie recipe but *without* the chips and one a classic sugar cookie recipe but *with* chocolate chips added, most people would say something along the lines of, \"This is a sugar cookie with chocolate chips, and this chocolate chip cookie has no chocolate chips in it.\"\n\nThe look, feel, texture, and taste of the brown sugar cookie base is iconic and recognizable enough that a brown sugar cookie will generally be identified as a chocolate chip cookie even without the chocolate chips because it's the brown sugar, not the chocolate chips, that give it most of its defining traits. In the same way, the dough base is so integral that even though \"chocolate chip cookie\" simply implies a cookie with chocolate chips most people would not call a cookie with chocolate chips a chocolate chip cookie if it wasn't a brown sugar cookie with chocolate chips.\n\nI haven't had the opportunity to blind test my hypothesis, so I thought I'd lay my chips on the table and see if anyone on here can give me a compelling reason as to why I'm incorrect.",
"date": "2023-11-29",
"id": "186y802",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 286,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The integral ingredient to chocolate chip cookies is brown sugar, not chocolate chips.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/186y802/cmv_the_integral_ingredient_to_chocolate_chip/"
},
{
"author": "Adequate_Images",
"body": "“The integral ingredient to pepperoni pizza is the cheese, not the pepperoni”\n\nThis makes as much sense as your statement. \n\nWe have different names for things for a reason.",
"date": "2023-11-29",
"id": "kbbhsc7",
"parent_id": "186y802",
"score": 15,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Sleepycoon",
"body": "While this is hilarious I think it kind of supports the point I was trying to make.\n\nIf anything cheese is more integral to what people expect from a pepperoni pizza than molasses is to a chocolate chip cookie.\n\nIf you order a pepperoni pizza the cheese is assumed. No one orders a \"pepperoni and cheese pizza\" and if someone wants a pizza with just pepperoni they're going to specify no cheese.\n\nIf you order a pepperoni pizza and they set a pizza with pepperonis but no cheese on your table you're probably going to send it back to be remade and not accept, \"But you wanted pepperoni pizza and this meets the definition.\" as a reasonable explanation.\n\nIf I buy a chocolate chip cookie and I'm given a chocolate chip cookie made with white sugar and no molasses I'm going to be disappointed and a little confused as to why they'd make it like that. It's not going to taste or feel like the cookie I wanted.",
"date": "2023-11-29",
"id": "kbbkskg",
"parent_id": "kbbhsc7",
"score": -1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Sleepycoon",
"body": "I think it's safe to say that in the US at least the chocolate chip cookie is the de facto cookie. It's the one that most people immediately think of when hearing \"cookie,\" it's the one that 95% of the results are if you Google image search \"cookie,\" it's *the* cookie.\n\nThe other contender, or more accurately, the runner up, is the sugar cookie. It's the default cookie. The most basic, nondescript, blank canvas of a cookie out there. It's a classic for holidays, decorating, and the cookie that most cookie flavored things are based on.\n\nThe basic version of these two cookies are very similar. They're both flour, baking soda, salt, softened butter, egg, vanilla, and sugar in similar quantities. The only two notable differences are the chocolate chips and that sugar cookies are made with white sugar and chocolate chip cookies are made with brown sugar.\n\nIntuition would say that the integral difference in basic sugar cookies and *chocolate chip* cookies is *chocolate chips*. It's in the name, it's the iconic chip-in-cookie look, it's the textural variety of crunchy-on-the-outside melty-on-the-inside chunks in your cookie, it's the difference in vanilla and sugar flavored vs vanilla, sugar, and chocolate flavored. Obviously the chocolate chips are what make the chocolate chip cookie!\n\nI posit, though, that if I were to ask someone to describe two cookies, one a classic chocolate chip cookie recipe but *without* the chips and one a classic sugar cookie recipe but *with* chocolate chips added, most people would say something along the lines of, \"This is a sugar cookie with chocolate chips, and this chocolate chip cookie has no chocolate chips in it.\"\n\nThe look, feel, texture, and taste of the brown sugar cookie base is iconic and recognizable enough that a brown sugar cookie will generally be identified as a chocolate chip cookie even without the chocolate chips because it's the brown sugar, not the chocolate chips, that give it most of its defining traits. In the same way, the dough base is so integral that even though \"chocolate chip cookie\" simply implies a cookie with chocolate chips most people would not call a cookie with chocolate chips a chocolate chip cookie if it wasn't a brown sugar cookie with chocolate chips.\n\nI haven't had the opportunity to blind test my hypothesis, so I thought I'd lay my chips on the table and see if anyone on here can give me a compelling reason as to why I'm incorrect.",
"date": "2023-11-29",
"id": "186y802",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 286,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The integral ingredient to chocolate chip cookies is brown sugar, not chocolate chips.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/186y802/cmv_the_integral_ingredient_to_chocolate_chip/"
},
{
"author": "Haunting_Rain_3951",
"body": "You just don’t know what a chocolate chip cookie is. Adding cinnamon makes it a different cookie.",
"date": "2023-11-29",
"id": "kbc0w2f",
"parent_id": "186y802",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Sleepycoon",
"body": "I think it's safe to say that in the US at least the chocolate chip cookie is the de facto cookie. It's the one that most people immediately think of when hearing \"cookie,\" it's the one that 95% of the results are if you Google image search \"cookie,\" it's *the* cookie.\n\nThe other contender, or more accurately, the runner up, is the sugar cookie. It's the default cookie. The most basic, nondescript, blank canvas of a cookie out there. It's a classic for holidays, decorating, and the cookie that most cookie flavored things are based on.\n\nThe basic version of these two cookies are very similar. They're both flour, baking soda, salt, softened butter, egg, vanilla, and sugar in similar quantities. The only two notable differences are the chocolate chips and that sugar cookies are made with white sugar and chocolate chip cookies are made with brown sugar.\n\nIntuition would say that the integral difference in basic sugar cookies and *chocolate chip* cookies is *chocolate chips*. It's in the name, it's the iconic chip-in-cookie look, it's the textural variety of crunchy-on-the-outside melty-on-the-inside chunks in your cookie, it's the difference in vanilla and sugar flavored vs vanilla, sugar, and chocolate flavored. Obviously the chocolate chips are what make the chocolate chip cookie!\n\nI posit, though, that if I were to ask someone to describe two cookies, one a classic chocolate chip cookie recipe but *without* the chips and one a classic sugar cookie recipe but *with* chocolate chips added, most people would say something along the lines of, \"This is a sugar cookie with chocolate chips, and this chocolate chip cookie has no chocolate chips in it.\"\n\nThe look, feel, texture, and taste of the brown sugar cookie base is iconic and recognizable enough that a brown sugar cookie will generally be identified as a chocolate chip cookie even without the chocolate chips because it's the brown sugar, not the chocolate chips, that give it most of its defining traits. In the same way, the dough base is so integral that even though \"chocolate chip cookie\" simply implies a cookie with chocolate chips most people would not call a cookie with chocolate chips a chocolate chip cookie if it wasn't a brown sugar cookie with chocolate chips.\n\nI haven't had the opportunity to blind test my hypothesis, so I thought I'd lay my chips on the table and see if anyone on here can give me a compelling reason as to why I'm incorrect.",
"date": "2023-11-29",
"id": "186y802",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 286,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The integral ingredient to chocolate chip cookies is brown sugar, not chocolate chips.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/186y802/cmv_the_integral_ingredient_to_chocolate_chip/"
},
{
"author": "Bubblegum-N-Orgasms",
"body": "The vanilla flavoring is my favorite part!",
"date": "2023-11-29",
"id": "kbcmawt",
"parent_id": "186y802",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Sleepycoon",
"body": "I think it's safe to say that in the US at least the chocolate chip cookie is the de facto cookie. It's the one that most people immediately think of when hearing \"cookie,\" it's the one that 95% of the results are if you Google image search \"cookie,\" it's *the* cookie.\n\nThe other contender, or more accurately, the runner up, is the sugar cookie. It's the default cookie. The most basic, nondescript, blank canvas of a cookie out there. It's a classic for holidays, decorating, and the cookie that most cookie flavored things are based on.\n\nThe basic version of these two cookies are very similar. They're both flour, baking soda, salt, softened butter, egg, vanilla, and sugar in similar quantities. The only two notable differences are the chocolate chips and that sugar cookies are made with white sugar and chocolate chip cookies are made with brown sugar.\n\nIntuition would say that the integral difference in basic sugar cookies and *chocolate chip* cookies is *chocolate chips*. It's in the name, it's the iconic chip-in-cookie look, it's the textural variety of crunchy-on-the-outside melty-on-the-inside chunks in your cookie, it's the difference in vanilla and sugar flavored vs vanilla, sugar, and chocolate flavored. Obviously the chocolate chips are what make the chocolate chip cookie!\n\nI posit, though, that if I were to ask someone to describe two cookies, one a classic chocolate chip cookie recipe but *without* the chips and one a classic sugar cookie recipe but *with* chocolate chips added, most people would say something along the lines of, \"This is a sugar cookie with chocolate chips, and this chocolate chip cookie has no chocolate chips in it.\"\n\nThe look, feel, texture, and taste of the brown sugar cookie base is iconic and recognizable enough that a brown sugar cookie will generally be identified as a chocolate chip cookie even without the chocolate chips because it's the brown sugar, not the chocolate chips, that give it most of its defining traits. In the same way, the dough base is so integral that even though \"chocolate chip cookie\" simply implies a cookie with chocolate chips most people would not call a cookie with chocolate chips a chocolate chip cookie if it wasn't a brown sugar cookie with chocolate chips.\n\nI haven't had the opportunity to blind test my hypothesis, so I thought I'd lay my chips on the table and see if anyone on here can give me a compelling reason as to why I'm incorrect.",
"date": "2023-11-29",
"id": "186y802",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 286,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The integral ingredient to chocolate chip cookies is brown sugar, not chocolate chips.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/186y802/cmv_the_integral_ingredient_to_chocolate_chip/"
},
{
"author": "LowerAnt7017",
"body": "I’ve subbed honey for brown sugar and nobody noticed a lack of brown sugar or thought they were anything different than a really good choc chip cookie. They actually turned out a little more chewy which I prefer.",
"date": "2023-11-29",
"id": "kbcmxlm",
"parent_id": "186y802",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Sleepycoon",
"body": "I think it's safe to say that in the US at least the chocolate chip cookie is the de facto cookie. It's the one that most people immediately think of when hearing \"cookie,\" it's the one that 95% of the results are if you Google image search \"cookie,\" it's *the* cookie.\n\nThe other contender, or more accurately, the runner up, is the sugar cookie. It's the default cookie. The most basic, nondescript, blank canvas of a cookie out there. It's a classic for holidays, decorating, and the cookie that most cookie flavored things are based on.\n\nThe basic version of these two cookies are very similar. They're both flour, baking soda, salt, softened butter, egg, vanilla, and sugar in similar quantities. The only two notable differences are the chocolate chips and that sugar cookies are made with white sugar and chocolate chip cookies are made with brown sugar.\n\nIntuition would say that the integral difference in basic sugar cookies and *chocolate chip* cookies is *chocolate chips*. It's in the name, it's the iconic chip-in-cookie look, it's the textural variety of crunchy-on-the-outside melty-on-the-inside chunks in your cookie, it's the difference in vanilla and sugar flavored vs vanilla, sugar, and chocolate flavored. Obviously the chocolate chips are what make the chocolate chip cookie!\n\nI posit, though, that if I were to ask someone to describe two cookies, one a classic chocolate chip cookie recipe but *without* the chips and one a classic sugar cookie recipe but *with* chocolate chips added, most people would say something along the lines of, \"This is a sugar cookie with chocolate chips, and this chocolate chip cookie has no chocolate chips in it.\"\n\nThe look, feel, texture, and taste of the brown sugar cookie base is iconic and recognizable enough that a brown sugar cookie will generally be identified as a chocolate chip cookie even without the chocolate chips because it's the brown sugar, not the chocolate chips, that give it most of its defining traits. In the same way, the dough base is so integral that even though \"chocolate chip cookie\" simply implies a cookie with chocolate chips most people would not call a cookie with chocolate chips a chocolate chip cookie if it wasn't a brown sugar cookie with chocolate chips.\n\nI haven't had the opportunity to blind test my hypothesis, so I thought I'd lay my chips on the table and see if anyone on here can give me a compelling reason as to why I'm incorrect.",
"date": "2023-11-29",
"id": "186y802",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 286,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The integral ingredient to chocolate chip cookies is brown sugar, not chocolate chips.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/186y802/cmv_the_integral_ingredient_to_chocolate_chip/"
},
{
"author": "StarChild413",
"body": "They both could be integral in different ways, chocolate chips make a chocolate chip cookie a chocolate chip cookie, brown sugar makes a good chocolate chip cookie a good chocolate chip cookie",
"date": "2023-11-29",
"id": "kbcve5m",
"parent_id": "186y802",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Sleepycoon",
"body": "I think it's safe to say that in the US at least the chocolate chip cookie is the de facto cookie. It's the one that most people immediately think of when hearing \"cookie,\" it's the one that 95% of the results are if you Google image search \"cookie,\" it's *the* cookie.\n\nThe other contender, or more accurately, the runner up, is the sugar cookie. It's the default cookie. The most basic, nondescript, blank canvas of a cookie out there. It's a classic for holidays, decorating, and the cookie that most cookie flavored things are based on.\n\nThe basic version of these two cookies are very similar. They're both flour, baking soda, salt, softened butter, egg, vanilla, and sugar in similar quantities. The only two notable differences are the chocolate chips and that sugar cookies are made with white sugar and chocolate chip cookies are made with brown sugar.\n\nIntuition would say that the integral difference in basic sugar cookies and *chocolate chip* cookies is *chocolate chips*. It's in the name, it's the iconic chip-in-cookie look, it's the textural variety of crunchy-on-the-outside melty-on-the-inside chunks in your cookie, it's the difference in vanilla and sugar flavored vs vanilla, sugar, and chocolate flavored. Obviously the chocolate chips are what make the chocolate chip cookie!\n\nI posit, though, that if I were to ask someone to describe two cookies, one a classic chocolate chip cookie recipe but *without* the chips and one a classic sugar cookie recipe but *with* chocolate chips added, most people would say something along the lines of, \"This is a sugar cookie with chocolate chips, and this chocolate chip cookie has no chocolate chips in it.\"\n\nThe look, feel, texture, and taste of the brown sugar cookie base is iconic and recognizable enough that a brown sugar cookie will generally be identified as a chocolate chip cookie even without the chocolate chips because it's the brown sugar, not the chocolate chips, that give it most of its defining traits. In the same way, the dough base is so integral that even though \"chocolate chip cookie\" simply implies a cookie with chocolate chips most people would not call a cookie with chocolate chips a chocolate chip cookie if it wasn't a brown sugar cookie with chocolate chips.\n\nI haven't had the opportunity to blind test my hypothesis, so I thought I'd lay my chips on the table and see if anyone on here can give me a compelling reason as to why I'm incorrect.",
"date": "2023-11-29",
"id": "186y802",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 286,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The integral ingredient to chocolate chip cookies is brown sugar, not chocolate chips.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/186y802/cmv_the_integral_ingredient_to_chocolate_chip/"
},
{
"author": "AUniquePerspective",
"body": "I'm going to have to disagree. The integral difference between the sugar cookie and the chocolate chip cookie is the flour to fat ratio. Sugar cookies are rolled or pressed because they're made from firm enough dough. Chocolate chip cookies are drop cookies and whatever way you drop their very sticky dough that's almost a borderline batter doesn't really matter because they have insufficient structural integrity to hold their shape in cooking: they're turning out roundish no matter what.",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "kbdkkhq",
"parent_id": "186y802",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Sleepycoon",
"body": "I think it's safe to say that in the US at least the chocolate chip cookie is the de facto cookie. It's the one that most people immediately think of when hearing \"cookie,\" it's the one that 95% of the results are if you Google image search \"cookie,\" it's *the* cookie.\n\nThe other contender, or more accurately, the runner up, is the sugar cookie. It's the default cookie. The most basic, nondescript, blank canvas of a cookie out there. It's a classic for holidays, decorating, and the cookie that most cookie flavored things are based on.\n\nThe basic version of these two cookies are very similar. They're both flour, baking soda, salt, softened butter, egg, vanilla, and sugar in similar quantities. The only two notable differences are the chocolate chips and that sugar cookies are made with white sugar and chocolate chip cookies are made with brown sugar.\n\nIntuition would say that the integral difference in basic sugar cookies and *chocolate chip* cookies is *chocolate chips*. It's in the name, it's the iconic chip-in-cookie look, it's the textural variety of crunchy-on-the-outside melty-on-the-inside chunks in your cookie, it's the difference in vanilla and sugar flavored vs vanilla, sugar, and chocolate flavored. Obviously the chocolate chips are what make the chocolate chip cookie!\n\nI posit, though, that if I were to ask someone to describe two cookies, one a classic chocolate chip cookie recipe but *without* the chips and one a classic sugar cookie recipe but *with* chocolate chips added, most people would say something along the lines of, \"This is a sugar cookie with chocolate chips, and this chocolate chip cookie has no chocolate chips in it.\"\n\nThe look, feel, texture, and taste of the brown sugar cookie base is iconic and recognizable enough that a brown sugar cookie will generally be identified as a chocolate chip cookie even without the chocolate chips because it's the brown sugar, not the chocolate chips, that give it most of its defining traits. In the same way, the dough base is so integral that even though \"chocolate chip cookie\" simply implies a cookie with chocolate chips most people would not call a cookie with chocolate chips a chocolate chip cookie if it wasn't a brown sugar cookie with chocolate chips.\n\nI haven't had the opportunity to blind test my hypothesis, so I thought I'd lay my chips on the table and see if anyone on here can give me a compelling reason as to why I'm incorrect.",
"date": "2023-11-29",
"id": "186y802",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 286,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The integral ingredient to chocolate chip cookies is brown sugar, not chocolate chips.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/186y802/cmv_the_integral_ingredient_to_chocolate_chip/"
},
{
"author": "Nivek8789",
"body": "Well you still need chips or chunks",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "kbe1txz",
"parent_id": "186y802",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Sleepycoon",
"body": "I think it's safe to say that in the US at least the chocolate chip cookie is the de facto cookie. It's the one that most people immediately think of when hearing \"cookie,\" it's the one that 95% of the results are if you Google image search \"cookie,\" it's *the* cookie.\n\nThe other contender, or more accurately, the runner up, is the sugar cookie. It's the default cookie. The most basic, nondescript, blank canvas of a cookie out there. It's a classic for holidays, decorating, and the cookie that most cookie flavored things are based on.\n\nThe basic version of these two cookies are very similar. They're both flour, baking soda, salt, softened butter, egg, vanilla, and sugar in similar quantities. The only two notable differences are the chocolate chips and that sugar cookies are made with white sugar and chocolate chip cookies are made with brown sugar.\n\nIntuition would say that the integral difference in basic sugar cookies and *chocolate chip* cookies is *chocolate chips*. It's in the name, it's the iconic chip-in-cookie look, it's the textural variety of crunchy-on-the-outside melty-on-the-inside chunks in your cookie, it's the difference in vanilla and sugar flavored vs vanilla, sugar, and chocolate flavored. Obviously the chocolate chips are what make the chocolate chip cookie!\n\nI posit, though, that if I were to ask someone to describe two cookies, one a classic chocolate chip cookie recipe but *without* the chips and one a classic sugar cookie recipe but *with* chocolate chips added, most people would say something along the lines of, \"This is a sugar cookie with chocolate chips, and this chocolate chip cookie has no chocolate chips in it.\"\n\nThe look, feel, texture, and taste of the brown sugar cookie base is iconic and recognizable enough that a brown sugar cookie will generally be identified as a chocolate chip cookie even without the chocolate chips because it's the brown sugar, not the chocolate chips, that give it most of its defining traits. In the same way, the dough base is so integral that even though \"chocolate chip cookie\" simply implies a cookie with chocolate chips most people would not call a cookie with chocolate chips a chocolate chip cookie if it wasn't a brown sugar cookie with chocolate chips.\n\nI haven't had the opportunity to blind test my hypothesis, so I thought I'd lay my chips on the table and see if anyone on here can give me a compelling reason as to why I'm incorrect.",
"date": "2023-11-29",
"id": "186y802",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 286,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The integral ingredient to chocolate chip cookies is brown sugar, not chocolate chips.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/186y802/cmv_the_integral_ingredient_to_chocolate_chip/"
},
{
"author": "GThane",
"body": "So my family makes a molasses cookie that is more brown sugar that molasses. You would not call it a chocolate chip cookie because of its brown sugar content. You can also make a cookie with out brown sugar and people would still consider it a cookie, regardless of if it tastes worse or different.",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "kbejepc",
"parent_id": "186y802",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Sleepycoon",
"body": "I think it's safe to say that in the US at least the chocolate chip cookie is the de facto cookie. It's the one that most people immediately think of when hearing \"cookie,\" it's the one that 95% of the results are if you Google image search \"cookie,\" it's *the* cookie.\n\nThe other contender, or more accurately, the runner up, is the sugar cookie. It's the default cookie. The most basic, nondescript, blank canvas of a cookie out there. It's a classic for holidays, decorating, and the cookie that most cookie flavored things are based on.\n\nThe basic version of these two cookies are very similar. They're both flour, baking soda, salt, softened butter, egg, vanilla, and sugar in similar quantities. The only two notable differences are the chocolate chips and that sugar cookies are made with white sugar and chocolate chip cookies are made with brown sugar.\n\nIntuition would say that the integral difference in basic sugar cookies and *chocolate chip* cookies is *chocolate chips*. It's in the name, it's the iconic chip-in-cookie look, it's the textural variety of crunchy-on-the-outside melty-on-the-inside chunks in your cookie, it's the difference in vanilla and sugar flavored vs vanilla, sugar, and chocolate flavored. Obviously the chocolate chips are what make the chocolate chip cookie!\n\nI posit, though, that if I were to ask someone to describe two cookies, one a classic chocolate chip cookie recipe but *without* the chips and one a classic sugar cookie recipe but *with* chocolate chips added, most people would say something along the lines of, \"This is a sugar cookie with chocolate chips, and this chocolate chip cookie has no chocolate chips in it.\"\n\nThe look, feel, texture, and taste of the brown sugar cookie base is iconic and recognizable enough that a brown sugar cookie will generally be identified as a chocolate chip cookie even without the chocolate chips because it's the brown sugar, not the chocolate chips, that give it most of its defining traits. In the same way, the dough base is so integral that even though \"chocolate chip cookie\" simply implies a cookie with chocolate chips most people would not call a cookie with chocolate chips a chocolate chip cookie if it wasn't a brown sugar cookie with chocolate chips.\n\nI haven't had the opportunity to blind test my hypothesis, so I thought I'd lay my chips on the table and see if anyone on here can give me a compelling reason as to why I'm incorrect.",
"date": "2023-11-29",
"id": "186y802",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 286,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The integral ingredient to chocolate chip cookies is brown sugar, not chocolate chips.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/186y802/cmv_the_integral_ingredient_to_chocolate_chip/"
},
{
"author": "chollida1",
"body": "Given that alot of chocolate chip cookie recipes don't have brown sugar this seems like it should be a trivialby provable cmv, no?",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "kbgfixx",
"parent_id": "186y802",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Sleepycoon",
"body": "I think it's safe to say that in the US at least the chocolate chip cookie is the de facto cookie. It's the one that most people immediately think of when hearing \"cookie,\" it's the one that 95% of the results are if you Google image search \"cookie,\" it's *the* cookie.\n\nThe other contender, or more accurately, the runner up, is the sugar cookie. It's the default cookie. The most basic, nondescript, blank canvas of a cookie out there. It's a classic for holidays, decorating, and the cookie that most cookie flavored things are based on.\n\nThe basic version of these two cookies are very similar. They're both flour, baking soda, salt, softened butter, egg, vanilla, and sugar in similar quantities. The only two notable differences are the chocolate chips and that sugar cookies are made with white sugar and chocolate chip cookies are made with brown sugar.\n\nIntuition would say that the integral difference in basic sugar cookies and *chocolate chip* cookies is *chocolate chips*. It's in the name, it's the iconic chip-in-cookie look, it's the textural variety of crunchy-on-the-outside melty-on-the-inside chunks in your cookie, it's the difference in vanilla and sugar flavored vs vanilla, sugar, and chocolate flavored. Obviously the chocolate chips are what make the chocolate chip cookie!\n\nI posit, though, that if I were to ask someone to describe two cookies, one a classic chocolate chip cookie recipe but *without* the chips and one a classic sugar cookie recipe but *with* chocolate chips added, most people would say something along the lines of, \"This is a sugar cookie with chocolate chips, and this chocolate chip cookie has no chocolate chips in it.\"\n\nThe look, feel, texture, and taste of the brown sugar cookie base is iconic and recognizable enough that a brown sugar cookie will generally be identified as a chocolate chip cookie even without the chocolate chips because it's the brown sugar, not the chocolate chips, that give it most of its defining traits. In the same way, the dough base is so integral that even though \"chocolate chip cookie\" simply implies a cookie with chocolate chips most people would not call a cookie with chocolate chips a chocolate chip cookie if it wasn't a brown sugar cookie with chocolate chips.\n\nI haven't had the opportunity to blind test my hypothesis, so I thought I'd lay my chips on the table and see if anyone on here can give me a compelling reason as to why I'm incorrect.",
"date": "2023-11-29",
"id": "186y802",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 286,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The integral ingredient to chocolate chip cookies is brown sugar, not chocolate chips.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/186y802/cmv_the_integral_ingredient_to_chocolate_chip/"
},
{
"author": "Elder_Millennial108",
"body": "Arguing here on behalf of my mom. She will take a perfectly good batch of chocolate chip cookies and pick out ONLY the chocolate chips to eat. Then, like a true monster, she will put the tupperware lid back so the next person is faced with swiss cheese cookies. I think she would say the chips are the integral ingredient.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbmpkku",
"parent_id": "186y802",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Sleepycoon",
"body": "I think it's safe to say that in the US at least the chocolate chip cookie is the de facto cookie. It's the one that most people immediately think of when hearing \"cookie,\" it's the one that 95% of the results are if you Google image search \"cookie,\" it's *the* cookie.\n\nThe other contender, or more accurately, the runner up, is the sugar cookie. It's the default cookie. The most basic, nondescript, blank canvas of a cookie out there. It's a classic for holidays, decorating, and the cookie that most cookie flavored things are based on.\n\nThe basic version of these two cookies are very similar. They're both flour, baking soda, salt, softened butter, egg, vanilla, and sugar in similar quantities. The only two notable differences are the chocolate chips and that sugar cookies are made with white sugar and chocolate chip cookies are made with brown sugar.\n\nIntuition would say that the integral difference in basic sugar cookies and *chocolate chip* cookies is *chocolate chips*. It's in the name, it's the iconic chip-in-cookie look, it's the textural variety of crunchy-on-the-outside melty-on-the-inside chunks in your cookie, it's the difference in vanilla and sugar flavored vs vanilla, sugar, and chocolate flavored. Obviously the chocolate chips are what make the chocolate chip cookie!\n\nI posit, though, that if I were to ask someone to describe two cookies, one a classic chocolate chip cookie recipe but *without* the chips and one a classic sugar cookie recipe but *with* chocolate chips added, most people would say something along the lines of, \"This is a sugar cookie with chocolate chips, and this chocolate chip cookie has no chocolate chips in it.\"\n\nThe look, feel, texture, and taste of the brown sugar cookie base is iconic and recognizable enough that a brown sugar cookie will generally be identified as a chocolate chip cookie even without the chocolate chips because it's the brown sugar, not the chocolate chips, that give it most of its defining traits. In the same way, the dough base is so integral that even though \"chocolate chip cookie\" simply implies a cookie with chocolate chips most people would not call a cookie with chocolate chips a chocolate chip cookie if it wasn't a brown sugar cookie with chocolate chips.\n\nI haven't had the opportunity to blind test my hypothesis, so I thought I'd lay my chips on the table and see if anyone on here can give me a compelling reason as to why I'm incorrect.",
"date": "2023-11-29",
"id": "186y802",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 286,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The integral ingredient to chocolate chip cookies is brown sugar, not chocolate chips.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/186y802/cmv_the_integral_ingredient_to_chocolate_chip/"
},
{
"author": "MobiusCowbell",
"body": "Browned butter 🤝 brown sugar",
"date": "2023-12-02",
"id": "kbp2qvu",
"parent_id": "186y802",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Sleepycoon",
"body": "I think it's safe to say that in the US at least the chocolate chip cookie is the de facto cookie. It's the one that most people immediately think of when hearing \"cookie,\" it's the one that 95% of the results are if you Google image search \"cookie,\" it's *the* cookie.\n\nThe other contender, or more accurately, the runner up, is the sugar cookie. It's the default cookie. The most basic, nondescript, blank canvas of a cookie out there. It's a classic for holidays, decorating, and the cookie that most cookie flavored things are based on.\n\nThe basic version of these two cookies are very similar. They're both flour, baking soda, salt, softened butter, egg, vanilla, and sugar in similar quantities. The only two notable differences are the chocolate chips and that sugar cookies are made with white sugar and chocolate chip cookies are made with brown sugar.\n\nIntuition would say that the integral difference in basic sugar cookies and *chocolate chip* cookies is *chocolate chips*. It's in the name, it's the iconic chip-in-cookie look, it's the textural variety of crunchy-on-the-outside melty-on-the-inside chunks in your cookie, it's the difference in vanilla and sugar flavored vs vanilla, sugar, and chocolate flavored. Obviously the chocolate chips are what make the chocolate chip cookie!\n\nI posit, though, that if I were to ask someone to describe two cookies, one a classic chocolate chip cookie recipe but *without* the chips and one a classic sugar cookie recipe but *with* chocolate chips added, most people would say something along the lines of, \"This is a sugar cookie with chocolate chips, and this chocolate chip cookie has no chocolate chips in it.\"\n\nThe look, feel, texture, and taste of the brown sugar cookie base is iconic and recognizable enough that a brown sugar cookie will generally be identified as a chocolate chip cookie even without the chocolate chips because it's the brown sugar, not the chocolate chips, that give it most of its defining traits. In the same way, the dough base is so integral that even though \"chocolate chip cookie\" simply implies a cookie with chocolate chips most people would not call a cookie with chocolate chips a chocolate chip cookie if it wasn't a brown sugar cookie with chocolate chips.\n\nI haven't had the opportunity to blind test my hypothesis, so I thought I'd lay my chips on the table and see if anyone on here can give me a compelling reason as to why I'm incorrect.",
"date": "2023-11-29",
"id": "186y802",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 286,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The integral ingredient to chocolate chip cookies is brown sugar, not chocolate chips.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/186y802/cmv_the_integral_ingredient_to_chocolate_chip/"
},
{
"author": "AdamSchiffIsaPedo",
"body": "No. The integral ingredient in a chocolate chip cookie is a chocolate chip. If you put chocolate chips in any cookie, it is a chocolate chip cookie. It might not be what you first imagine when somebody says chocolate chip cookie, but it will technically be a chocolate chip cookie. If you made sugar cookies and put chocolate chips in them, they would be weird tasting chocolate chip cookies. You are correct that brown sugar gives the flavor that most people think about when they think about chocolate chip cookies, but it is not mandatory to fall in that category.",
"date": "2023-12-03",
"id": "kbwt49f",
"parent_id": "186y802",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
]
]
| challenge |
[
{
"author": "donotholdyourbreath",
"body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "187kbxo",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/"
},
{
"author": "iamintheforest",
"body": "Is there a distinction between \"everything people do is ultimately selfish\" and your view? I don't think so.\n\nThe context of people saying that it's selfish to not have kids is to say that you're sustaining and interest in doing things for self whereas the person who has kids wants to spend their time on others. We might say that this is _ultimately_ a self-want and therefore selfish, but to take that stance is to be having a pretty different conversation than the (typical) person who says it.",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "kbf6whf",
"parent_id": "187kbxo",
"score": 18,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "donotholdyourbreath",
"body": "!delta. \n\nI can finally see the difference. Ultimately i find these people whom call me selfish rude as hell though. I might be cynical but i still think most parents have a terrible me first attitude when they have kids. They had kids because me first. I want someone to love me mentality",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "kbf75pz",
"parent_id": "kbf6whf",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "DeltaBot",
"body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/iamintheforest ([262∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/iamintheforest)).\n\n^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "kbf7879",
"parent_id": "kbf75pz",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
]
| [
[
{
"author": "donotholdyourbreath",
"body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "187kbxo",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/"
},
{
"author": "Rainbwned",
"body": "What is your definition of selfish?",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "kberlfa",
"parent_id": "187kbxo",
"score": 4,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "donotholdyourbreath",
"body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "187kbxo",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/"
},
{
"author": "Imadevilsadvocater",
"body": "do you want to eat?\n\nwant to have friends? \n\nwant to feel love? \n\nwant to sleep?\n\nwant to live?\n\nif any of those seem like needs not wants congrats youve learned why people want kids. its in our dna to want them (which makes them a psuedo need at the least) the same way we need all the other things above. most people will have negative emotions if they dont have kids (see stillborns/women who steal babies/women who are jealous of other family members having kids) its a need for most people and there is no argument for that other than i was born to want it and only undiscovered or immoral medical intervention can change that about me",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "kberrbf",
"parent_id": "187kbxo",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "donotholdyourbreath",
"body": "I don't make my friends dependent on me. I don't force my friends to sleep with me even if I want to.",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "kbew0oc",
"parent_id": "kberrbf",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "donotholdyourbreath",
"body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "187kbxo",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/"
},
{
"author": "kevinwestern777",
"body": "This is an opinion of an child free person (if I had to guess?), because once you have children your life becomes a whole lot less about “you”. Not sure where “selfish” comes into okay. My ideal weekend would be to wake up at 9am, go play golf with my wife and friends, hang out and get drinks after, and maybe play and record music at night. \n\nBut with a kid? I wake up at 6am. I have to change diapers, clothe him, feed him, watch him till nap time, pickup again in a few hours, eventually bathe him, get ready for bed, and about 8pm-9pm I’ve got like an hour to do things I want to do. \n\nNow, I love my guy and every second I get to hang out with him, but I wouldn’t call this “selfish”. I mean, devoting 20 years to raising and helping someone else seems like the opposite of selfish to be honest.",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "kberud0",
"parent_id": "187kbxo",
"score": 46,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Severe-Bicycle-9469",
"body": "I guess for the sake of argument, the counter to that would be, why did you have the kid then? \n\nYes your life is more selfless now and mostly in service to another, but were the reasons for having the kid selfless or were they for yourself? \n\nExcluding an accidental pregnancy or adoption of a sibling’s kids, I can see that being neutral and more selfless respectively.",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "kbeufs9",
"parent_id": "kberud0",
"score": -1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "donotholdyourbreath",
"body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "187kbxo",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/"
},
{
"author": "Vegasgiants",
"body": "Then as you say any action is selfish if it benefits you. The word becomes pointless",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "kbes0af",
"parent_id": "187kbxo",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "donotholdyourbreath",
"body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "187kbxo",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/"
},
{
"author": "ReOsIr10",
"body": "Selfishness, as used in everyday conversation, implies some degree of disregard of the well-being others. Even if, for the majority of parents, the decision to have a child is motivated by what the parents want, it’s not common that they *disregard* the well-being of the child. Parents generally believe they will provide a good life, or at least one worth living, to their child.",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "kbes16g",
"parent_id": "187kbxo",
"score": 4,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "donotholdyourbreath",
"body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "187kbxo",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/"
},
{
"author": "sdbest",
"body": "Having children is, at its core, a biological impulse resulting from evolution. Not only do human beings have 'children,' but so do all other species. Are they 'selfish,' too?\n\nSo, I'm not sure how having children is 'selfish,' whatever that means in the context of your view. \n\nAnd, just a quibble, there seems to be some word choices in your comment that make it, for me, less clear than perhaps you intended.\n\nYou write, for example, \"You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish.\" Your meaning is not clear to me.",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "kbescge",
"parent_id": "187kbxo",
"score": 15,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Severe-Bicycle-9469",
"body": "I have seen people argue for having children because it continues legacy, carry your name, leave a piece of you behind, you have someone to care for you when you are older. All of those I would consider mostly varying degrees of selfish reasons to bring a life into the world.",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "kbeusrs",
"parent_id": "kbescge",
"score": 4,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "donotholdyourbreath",
"body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "187kbxo",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/"
},
{
"author": "DeltaBlues82",
"body": "I grew up very poor. I had 3 jobs by the time I was 16, while I was still in school.\n\nI wanted to share my life with a mini-me, but give them a better experience than I had. Honestly my life kicks ass, but my wife and my dogs never made me feel like my family was complete. So adding more love, more life was something we get was the right choice for us.\n\nSo we had kids and now I work my ass off so they don’t have to. Work is my love language. And I show and teach them as much cool shit about the world as I can. Cause life kicks ass and we should all appreciate it for what it is.\n\nHaving kids is selfish, but as you mentioned, you could argue basically every choice we make is.\n\nBut being selfish, like all things, lies somewhere on a spectrum from none to all. Some people treat kids like little fashion accessories. Some put them to work.\n\nSome just want to share this awesome experience with someone else who will appreciate it.",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "kbese8t",
"parent_id": "187kbxo",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "could_not_care_more",
"body": "This all sounds lovely, except:\n\n>So we had kids and now I work my ass off so they don’t have to. Work is my love language.\n\nMaybe you know this, but just in case (because my parent took too long to realise this, and our otherwise good relationship is still not as close as it should be):\n\nWork is most likely not your children's love language. \n\nDon't forget to show them love in their language (for almost all kids it's physical touch/cuddles, words of affirmation, and doing things together like cooking or reading or exploring), because kids don't feel the love unless you are there to show it.",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "kbf2bxa",
"parent_id": "kbese8t",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "donotholdyourbreath",
"body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "187kbxo",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/"
},
{
"author": "ManufacturerSea7907",
"body": "Having kids is quite literally a duty you have to the world and your species. It’s the entire point of the human race. If that’s selfish, every single thing you could possibly do is selfish.",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "kbet1b4",
"parent_id": "187kbxo",
"score": 6,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "AdamantForeskin",
"body": "I hate it when people frame it as a “duty”\n\nThere are over 8 billion people on this planet, our species will be fine if OP doesn’t have kids",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "kbeuemk",
"parent_id": "kbet1b4",
"score": -1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "donotholdyourbreath",
"body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "187kbxo",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/"
},
{
"author": "Ballatik",
"body": "Your argument proves that having children can be selfish, but not that it always is or must be. Using another person only for your benefit is selfish whether they are your kid or not. However there are plenty of things we do that require other people that usually aren’t considered selfish. Conversations, friendships, consensual sex, trade, etc.\n\nAs a very basic argument: I generally enjoy my life. I don’t think I am an outlier. Therefore, I think that the average person generally enjoys their life. Based on that it is reasonable to assume that my children will generally enjoy their life. While it’s impossible to get their consent beforehand, it’s entirely possible that I can have kids for their own benefit.",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "kbet444",
"parent_id": "187kbxo",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "donotholdyourbreath",
"body": "Which is what? They don't consent. (Obviously) So it can't be for their benefit?",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "kbev2ds",
"parent_id": "kbet444",
"score": -1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "donotholdyourbreath",
"body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "187kbxo",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/"
},
{
"author": "Cautious_Speaker_451",
"body": "Having children is not only selfish, but it is immoral.\nYou must go to the /r/antinatalism/ page and see it by yourself.",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "kbeu846",
"parent_id": "187kbxo",
"score": -3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "kevinwestern777",
"body": "This seems like a wild stretch. \n\nUnless you leave a completely independent and self sustaining life (like in the woods and grow your own food), chances are you rely on people to make your life enjoyable. And where do you think those younger people putting food on the shelf in the store will come from when you’re 80? They don’t just appear, they have to be raised. \n\nAnyways, I’d love to learn more about this viewpoint as it’s just so completely foreign to me.",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "kbeuwie",
"parent_id": "kbeu846",
"score": 4,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "donotholdyourbreath",
"body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "187kbxo",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/"
},
{
"author": "NorthernStarLV",
"body": "Despite all the talk about the world being overpopulated and all that, there are countries and societies that suffer from long-term depopulation caused by low birthrates. People with patriotic feelings towards such a country might view procreation as essential for the long-term survival of their culture and nation and therefore choose to have children even though they might otherwise prefer to avoid all the hassle and expenses of bringing them up. Knowingly inconveniencing yourself for the overall benefit of society would be the opposite of selfish, no?",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "kbeubhp",
"parent_id": "187kbxo",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "donotholdyourbreath",
"body": "are there people who genuinely do it for their community or is it \"I want MY culture to survive\"",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "kbeurpl",
"parent_id": "kbeubhp",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "donotholdyourbreath",
"body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "187kbxo",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/"
},
{
"author": "LaCroixLimon",
"body": "neither of these situations are selfish. Having children is just a biological function thats coded into our brains. Not everyone wants to do it.",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "kbeuf9k",
"parent_id": "187kbxo",
"score": 4,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "donotholdyourbreath",
"body": "But its your desires. Most people do plan to have kids. Its a conscious thing",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "kbeumz5",
"parent_id": "kbeuf9k",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "donotholdyourbreath",
"body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "187kbxo",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/"
},
{
"author": "Hydraulis",
"body": "I agree, in our day and age, producing more people is a ridiculous thing to do.",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "kbeuuum",
"parent_id": "187kbxo",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Ansuz07",
"body": "Sorry, u/Hydraulis – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\r\n\r\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). \r\n\r\nIf you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20Hydraulis&message=Hydraulis%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\\[their%20comment\\]\\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/-/kbeuuum/\\)%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. \r\n\r\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "kbf693n",
"parent_id": "kbeuuum",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "donotholdyourbreath",
"body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "187kbxo",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/"
},
{
"author": "Veg0ku",
"body": "You could say everything we do is selfish. Even if that is true, something are more worth doing than some other things. \n\nI think it is a better thing to have a committed relationship and have children, than sitting alone playing video-games and watching anime.",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "kbev4in",
"parent_id": "187kbxo",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "donotholdyourbreath",
"body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "187kbxo",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/"
},
{
"author": "Greyattimes",
"body": "I have never heard of someone with children saying that \"child-free\" people are selfish. This doesn't seem like a typical viewpoint of people without children.\n\nNeither choice is selfish. Everyone has their reasons.",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "kbev7py",
"parent_id": "187kbxo",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "donotholdyourbreath",
"body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "187kbxo",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/"
},
{
"author": "destro23",
"body": ">When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWho laid and marked the trail?",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "kbew18g",
"parent_id": "187kbxo",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "donotholdyourbreath",
"body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "187kbxo",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/"
},
{
"author": "CashMikey",
"body": "* Society would literally cease to exist if nobody kids. Having children is part of continuing the existence of the species. Doing your part for that is not selfish\n* I prefer existing to not existing. Most people do! That's why the vast majority of people never commit suicide. Through that lens, it is tough to argue that having a child is simply for one's own benefit. The child gets to exist, that is a benefit to them in addition to the parents",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "kbexfr6",
"parent_id": "187kbxo",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "donotholdyourbreath",
"body": "the child wouldn't care not existing when it hasn't existed yet",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "kbeyyl2",
"parent_id": "kbexfr6",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "donotholdyourbreath",
"body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "187kbxo",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/"
},
{
"author": "DustErrant",
"body": ">All the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. \n> \n>Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person.\n\nIf you recognize the simple fact that having kids requires 2 people, you should also recognize this. Many people have kids, not because they think, \"I want kids\", but because their partner wants kids. In this case, they are choosing to sacrifice their time, life, and energy for the wants of their spouse, not their own selfish wants.",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "kbexxu5",
"parent_id": "187kbxo",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "donotholdyourbreath",
"body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "187kbxo",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/"
},
{
"author": "jatjqtjat",
"body": "I do not put my kids to work on my farm or in other capacity. I put the interests of my kids above my own interests.",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "kbexyh5",
"parent_id": "187kbxo",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "donotholdyourbreath",
"body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "187kbxo",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/"
},
{
"author": "LAKnapper",
"body": ">When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nUntil you fall and break your ankle",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "kbey020",
"parent_id": "187kbxo",
"score": 4,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "donotholdyourbreath",
"body": "But those helping me would still consent. None of the children will ever choose whether they want to be a parents child or not",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "kbezgi0",
"parent_id": "kbey020",
"score": -2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "donotholdyourbreath",
"body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "187kbxo",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/"
},
{
"author": "hsanj19",
"body": "I agree and won't try to change your mind. Having kids is a selfish decision. You do it because you want to....for some reason or the other, with the most innocent one being having the instinctive desire to have a child. More sinister reasons also exist.",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "kbey3kv",
"parent_id": "187kbxo",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Ansuz07",
"body": "Sorry, u/hsanj19 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\r\n\r\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). \r\n\r\nIf you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20hsanj19&message=hsanj19%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\\[their%20comment\\]\\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/-/kbey3kv/\\)%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. \r\n\r\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "kbf689f",
"parent_id": "kbey3kv",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "donotholdyourbreath",
"body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "187kbxo",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/"
},
{
"author": "AggressiveTap9781",
"body": "The main argument of your claim is “having children is selfish, but not the same way as other activities, it’s selfish on another level because, quote, it always be the child paying“.\n\nAs far as I understand from your text you’re focused on the “paying” part, as the one distinguishing the activity called “having children” from other activities (which arguably are all things we do)\n\nI assume that the word “pay” comes from the idea that children will be used as “cheap labor” or a mere tool to satisfy some other needs of their parents. Also the word “pay” might be referencing to idea that life equals suffering and children pay with their suffering for the selfishness of their parents.\n\nBoth claims are based on some assumptions about the life of a child.\n\nAs soon as children are not used as labor or tool and as soon as children start living lives which they enjoy, your whole claim breaks apart.",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "kbeyfdb",
"parent_id": "187kbxo",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "donotholdyourbreath",
"body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "187kbxo",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/"
},
{
"author": "Annekire",
"body": "I think if the planet wasn't burning and full of so much needless suffering from colonization to capitalist mindset of profit over people to rampant abuse of women and girls. It would be a graceful act to bring new life into such a world filled with peace, love, space for understanding and mutual respect. There would be an element of selfishness there but it doesn't have to be bad or parasitic like we see in society (Personal boundaries are an example of good selfishness). But as it is the hell it is right now...it is a very naive act imo.",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "kbez13b",
"parent_id": "187kbxo",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "donotholdyourbreath",
"body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "187kbxo",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/"
},
{
"author": "Own-Alternative-4885",
"body": "If kids were only had to be future labor in society and having them is selfish, than paying taxes that contribute to society’s functioning is also selfish.",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "kbf2cto",
"parent_id": "187kbxo",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "donotholdyourbreath",
"body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "187kbxo",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/"
},
{
"author": "AdventSign",
"body": "I’m unsure how OP is wrong about it. Everyone else is skirting around the main point. Whether “biological reasons” or because “they want to give their child a better like than them… at the core, they’re right objectively.",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "kbf3xkt",
"parent_id": "187kbxo",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Ansuz07",
"body": "Sorry, u/AdventSign – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\r\n\r\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). \r\n\r\nIf you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20AdventSign&message=AdventSign%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\\[their%20comment\\]\\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/-/kbf3xkt/\\)%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. \r\n\r\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "kbf6530",
"parent_id": "kbf3xkt",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "donotholdyourbreath",
"body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "187kbxo",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/"
},
{
"author": "Izawwlgood",
"body": "\\>All the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWouldn't the fact that kids 100% require another person, and produces another person that is reliant on you, be an example of something that is 100% self\\*less\\*? That is, my life is now dedicated entirely to the support and care of someone OTHER than myself?",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "kbf4ga6",
"parent_id": "187kbxo",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "donotholdyourbreath",
"body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "187kbxo",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/"
},
{
"author": "Hatook123",
"body": "Everything is selfish. Nothing anyone ever does is truly selfless.",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "kbf5hnb",
"parent_id": "187kbxo",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "donotholdyourbreath",
"body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "187kbxo",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/"
},
{
"author": "Successful_Panda8762",
"body": "Let's consider, for the sake of argument, a couple that planned having a child and are sufficiently good parents. \nThe fact that their actions, for at least most of the days of one or two decades, will be directly or indirectly related to the healthy development of a being with no autonomy and that they often sacrifice their own personal well-being to this goal shows selflessness in practice. That does not depend on why de decision of having kids were made. \nIt seems, when you claim the action is selfish because it requires another person, you're not taking into account that in families with a minimum of structure the kid is the one who will require, need, depend on their parents, who will provide (will \"pay\" for it), etc., not otherwise. \nEven in these cases it might be argued the parents have selfish reasons i.e pleasure, care when they get old. That seems right but not near enough to state that parents are selfish. If that would be so, only saints and priests, monks and such wouldn't be selfish, which is not a good parameter for the discussion. \nYour conclusions seem to be valid, the problem lies on the premises they start from. Exceptions (shitty parenting in a degree that it equates to kidnapping) do not prove the rule.",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "kbf6a3z",
"parent_id": "187kbxo",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "donotholdyourbreath",
"body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "187kbxo",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/"
},
{
"author": "myersdr1",
"body": "The desire to have kids may be selfish. \n\nActually having kids is everything but selfish as you no longer have your own life to think about and if anything some of your dreams and goals are put on hold for a minimum of 8-10 years before you can even think about those previous dreams and goals you had.\n\nThere is a reason why people make the joke about your life being over once you have kids.",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "kbf6fm9",
"parent_id": "187kbxo",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "donotholdyourbreath",
"body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "187kbxo",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/"
},
{
"author": "tacitus_killygore",
"body": "Based entirely on \"you have no necessity for a child\", then sure it's selfish. If we expand that logic, we would come to some weird ends that I don't think you or the majority of people would agree with (e.g. literally everything above absolute minimum caloric intake would be a selfish act). This idea would also be fine if it was purely in a semantic or tautological sense. If we are just defining selfish as something that we don't \"need\" then you're absolutely right. The only issue is that it feels like this argument is now an intuition pump or a bait and switch. For example: if we define a slave as someone who is beholden to another, then you would be slave if you borrowed lunch money. Technically, in this sequence, it would be correct to call you a slave; but the issue would then arise where the modern connotations of slavery will seep into the understanding of this scenario.\n\nRegardless of this, the idea sounds kind of malformed to me because import elements to the equation are nonexistant.\nFrom some of the other comments and hiking example, it seems to me that consent is the action you want to put emphasis on. And I would agree with that idea when talking about an existent entity. The issue to me here is that there isn't an existent entity; not in body, not in mind, not in even the most liberal definition of agency (unless you want to pull some mormon, hindu, etc. type theology)\n\nHow can you be \"kidnapping\" one that doesn't exist yet?\nHow can you gain or violate the consent of \"something\" that can not have those attributes? I put something in quotations because even that word implies some form of existence. We aren't talking about a thing yet, rather it's an idea of a thing that will eventually exist via reproduction.",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "kbfciqy",
"parent_id": "187kbxo",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "donotholdyourbreath",
"body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "187kbxo",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/"
},
{
"author": "ThinkWeather",
"body": "In the 80s, 2 people decided to have sex. Now I have to go to work with my disabilities, then ignore the climate crisis, and not be able to afford housing :( I really hope my mother fills “fulfilled”.",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "kbfe006",
"parent_id": "187kbxo",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "donotholdyourbreath",
"body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "187kbxo",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/"
},
{
"author": "Noctudeit",
"body": "Having children in the modern world is anything but selfish. Kids are almost always a net liability to parents, even if they end up providing support in senescence.\n\nMore to the point, having children is literally how almost all species are propegated on the planet. It is neither inherently selfish nor selfless, it just *is*.\n\nAll creatures on this earth must labor in some way to survive. Working on a family farm is just one way to accomplish this goal. There is nothing wrong with kids supporting their family, and arguably it is generally in their interest to do so due to the support/community/resources that the family provides.",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "kbfeinz",
"parent_id": "187kbxo",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "donotholdyourbreath",
"body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "187kbxo",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/"
},
{
"author": "dieseljeanqueen",
"body": "This is such a tired argument. People make life decisions based on what they want, that’s just how we work. Just because you give yourself something that you want, doesn’t mean you’re selfish. Selfishness involves making decisions based on what you want at the EXPENSE of others. Some parents have kids when they aren’t fit to do so, which is selfish, but some are many excellent parents who put their kids well being above all. Whether or not you have kids is not an indicator of how selfish or selfless you are, there’s a lot of context needed to make that judgement.",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "kbfktrx",
"parent_id": "187kbxo",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "donotholdyourbreath",
"body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "187kbxo",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/"
},
{
"author": "HottestGoblin",
"body": "This opinion is absolutely peak Reddit. Good job OP.",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "kbfnzvn",
"parent_id": "187kbxo",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "donotholdyourbreath",
"body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "187kbxo",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/"
},
{
"author": "ElectricalJelly1331",
"body": "To keep human race alive requires parenthood. It takes a shitload of selflessness to be a parent and people who never do it dont make the sacrifice. So its selfish in a way Doesnt mean all childless people are jerks for it just means they didnt put in their dues in keeping us alive",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "kbfrss5",
"parent_id": "187kbxo",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "donotholdyourbreath",
"body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "187kbxo",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/"
},
{
"author": "ElectricalJelly1331",
"body": "Which is why human sex drive exists and natural pull to want to have a baby. Its for our own survival If no one wanted parenthood we are doomed",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "kbfs0pq",
"parent_id": "187kbxo",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "donotholdyourbreath",
"body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "187kbxo",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/"
},
{
"author": "ElectricalJelly1331",
"body": "Its rotten to have kids and foist them off on others as in foster kids or bad parenting",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "kbfs6ol",
"parent_id": "187kbxo",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "donotholdyourbreath",
"body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "187kbxo",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/"
},
{
"author": "Sad_Razzmatazzle",
"body": "You put a moral judgement in your title, called ‘the opposing side’ selfish, then immediately claimed it’s not a moral judgement and you’re just curious? Most genuinely curious people don’t begin by calling the people they’re trying to ‘learn from’ selfish.\n\nI doubt you are actually open to anyone changing your view, but just in case:\n\nThere are so many valid and selfless reasons to have children. They are extremely personal and inherently subjective. Reproductive choices are morally neutral, as it is the motives behind the choices that make all the difference.\n\nFor example, if a mother works hard to financially, physically, and emotionally prepare to raise children, she is not selfish. She has done hard work that many do not so that she can devote herself to raising a child. Then, the (at least) 18 years of sacrificing her own wants and needs for her he sake of that child. I would in fact classify her as selfLESS.\n\nIf a mother gets pregnant on a whim or by accident and then does not adequately care for the child? That is indeed selfish. But it is the lack of care that makes this choice selfish, not the fact that the child was born.\n\nMany childfree people claim to be selfless — except their main reason for not having children is so they can continue an independent lifestyle and ‘do whatever they want’. That is literally the definition of selfish.\n\nThere are also childfree people who don’t have kids because they don’t want to pass on a genetic disorder, or because they are not in a place where they could realistically provide for a child, even if they may want one. In that case, giving up their desire to have a child is selfless.\n\nGiving birth is not equivalent to kidnapping; that’s a false equivalency fallacy. Love will NEVER be irrelevant, particularly when a developing brain in a familial context is involved.\n\nTl;dr: the reasons behind the choice to give birth make one selfish or selfless, not the choice itself.",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "kbg1141",
"parent_id": "187kbxo",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "donotholdyourbreath",
"body": "Selfishness isn't a bad good statement. Its a \"an I doing it for myself or for someone else\" statement",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "kbg3auq",
"parent_id": "kbg1141",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "donotholdyourbreath",
"body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "187kbxo",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/"
},
{
"author": "phoenixthekat",
"body": "By your logic, the statements \"I want to help the needy\" and \"I want to give all my money to charity\" are selfish because it is based on your personal desire.",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "kbg9eij",
"parent_id": "187kbxo",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "donotholdyourbreath",
"body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "187kbxo",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/"
},
{
"author": "Guilty_Scar_730",
"body": "There are plenty of religious people who have children because they believe child birth is a miracle of life and their religious texts morally compel to have children. You could say that they are looking out for their self interest in not wanting to go to hell but that sorta leads to your point that everything is selfish.",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "kbgsnhk",
"parent_id": "187kbxo",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "donotholdyourbreath",
"body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "187kbxo",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/"
},
{
"author": "jammin_halapeno",
"body": "Frankly, a lack of children will disrupt the population pyramid and force the next generation to excessively subsidize the parents retirement and otherwise mess up economics. Not having kids is socially irresponsible because the supply of labor will dwindle and cause hardship on the next generation. Ideally everyone will have enough kids to keep the population stable.",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "kbhbm0d",
"parent_id": "187kbxo",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "donotholdyourbreath",
"body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "187kbxo",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/"
},
{
"author": "atxarchitect91",
"body": "So your proposal is the collapse of the modern economic system because you believe propaganda that the world is going to end and everything isn’t pretty awesome relative to any time in history. This mentality is evil. If you are smart then you have a duty to procreate or atleast teach the next generation to be successful and intelligent",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "kbheo3m",
"parent_id": "187kbxo",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "donotholdyourbreath",
"body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "187kbxo",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/"
},
{
"author": "EntropyCat4",
"body": "I wouldn't say it is selfish but completely irresponsible to have children in today's world.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbienrh",
"parent_id": "187kbxo",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "donotholdyourbreath",
"body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "187kbxo",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/"
},
{
"author": "altern8goodguy",
"body": "My kids are better than everyone else's so my kids are an altruistic gift to humanity. My only regret is not having more to give.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbmb3yn",
"parent_id": "187kbxo",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "donotholdyourbreath",
"body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "187kbxo",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/"
},
{
"author": "Ant1chr1st-Sup3rstar",
"body": "It isn't when it's to continue the human species. It's only selfish if you think your genetics actually belong to you and not the ancestors who diverged from the common ancestor of us and chimpies",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbmexej",
"parent_id": "187kbxo",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "donotholdyourbreath",
"body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "187kbxo",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/"
},
{
"author": "snarky00",
"body": "By your logic isn’t it selfish to donate to a charity of your choice? Lots of people are probably doing it because it makes them feel good. But that’s kind of irrelevant because ultimately it makes the world better.",
"date": "2023-12-03",
"id": "kbs1dhl",
"parent_id": "187kbxo",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "donotholdyourbreath",
"body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
"date": "2023-11-30",
"id": "187kbxo",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/"
},
{
"author": "Rootbugger",
"body": ">To me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish.\n\nDid you mean \"... but that doesn't mean your action was not selfish.\"? Leaving out or putting in the \"not\" makes a difference: I know this concept may have blown your mind, but there it is.",
"date": "2023-12-13",
"id": "kd9ru3w",
"parent_id": "187kbxo",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
]
]
| moderate |
[
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "188h3zh",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/"
},
{
"author": "ququqachu",
"body": "As an amateur coder, it's already challenging enough to figure out when I should be counting from 1 and when I should be counting from 0. Now you want to introduce ANOTHER counting system?? Confusing!\n\nAdditionally, there are plenty of scenarios in which you might be counting something that doesn't have a plural. If you're searching through a list, counting instances of some item on that list, you might only find one instance—and that's still worth counting.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbkk8if",
"parent_id": "188h3zh",
"score": 44,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "In the post I already commented that leaving computers/coding as is would be acceptable, since assumptions cannot be made in computers.\n\n>So, we could start counting at 5\n\nAh, I didn't go far enough. I like it. !Delta.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbkwc2s",
"parent_id": "kbkk8if",
"score": 7,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "DeltaBot",
"body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/ququqachu ([6∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/ququqachu)).\n\n^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbkwfgh",
"parent_id": "kbkwc2s",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
]
| [
[
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "188h3zh",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/"
},
{
"author": "CallMeCorona1",
"body": "Counter-Examples:\n\n1. Army of one\n2. Commitee of one",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbklc5p",
"parent_id": "188h3zh",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "destro23",
"body": "One man band",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbks7js",
"parent_id": "kbklc5p",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "188h3zh",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/"
},
{
"author": "Drexelhand",
"body": ">you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item.\n\nif you have X of an item and it turns out to be 1 then it shouldn't be counted because you should have known it was only 1?",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbklgma",
"parent_id": "188h3zh",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "188h3zh",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/"
},
{
"author": "Brainsonastick",
"body": "My partner and I are baking. She asks me “how many eggs do you have?”\n\nI open the carton and count them. I only have one egg.\n\nWhat do I tell her?",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbkm50g",
"parent_id": "188h3zh",
"score": 29,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "DeathDestroyer90",
"body": "I egg",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbktyl5",
"parent_id": "kbkm50g",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "188h3zh",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/"
},
{
"author": "CBL44",
"body": "Why not 3? The simple point is you are never going to be counting if you only have two of said item. \n\nTheoretical it could be faster to start at 2 in your head but that not how our brains work. I point at every item and give a number because that's how my brain works. I could train it differently but why would I just to gain half a second?",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbkmu4s",
"parent_id": "188h3zh",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "If you are counting a lot, half seconds add up.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbkyz0n",
"parent_id": "kbkmu4s",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "188h3zh",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/"
},
{
"author": "2r1t",
"body": "I go to order supplies for the office. Some of the items will show a count of 1. The packing slip will show 1 of 1 or 0 of 1 depending on if it was in stock at the time of shipping. The invoice will show the same 1 count for items received which is then multipled by the per unit cost.\n\nThis is routine business where counts of 1 occur all the time.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbknnwu",
"parent_id": "188h3zh",
"score": 16,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Arguably when you are counting x out of y that is no longer discrete, but fractional, even if the x/y math equals an integer value.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbkwks4",
"parent_id": "kbknnwu",
"score": -3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "188h3zh",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/"
},
{
"author": "boney_blue",
"body": ">The simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\n \nI mean this just isn't true. I can tell someone to count how many boxes we have left, and the answer could be zero, one, or more than one. But when you are counting, the assumption that there is at least one of an item is not inherently true.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbkocbw",
"parent_id": "188h3zh",
"score": 7,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "When you tell someone to check how many boxes are left, they will immediately tell at a glance if there is only one or none left. They will only count if there are more.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbl09im",
"parent_id": "kbkocbw",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "188h3zh",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/"
},
{
"author": "BronzeSpoon89",
"body": "I think you are incorrect because \"you are never going to be counting if you HAVE ZERO OF THEM.\"",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbkp96u",
"parent_id": "188h3zh",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Seeing that only one item is present is clear at quick glance, which is why you wouldn't be counting at that point. /u/ququqachu pointed out that 5 is visible at quick glance, which would make my argument that hypothetically we should start counting at 5 (or 6 really since 5 is obvious)",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbkxuq8",
"parent_id": "kbkp96u",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "188h3zh",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/"
},
{
"author": "Creative-Pop2154",
"body": "I'm so confused, so are you saying that when counting out loud you just start with 2 but otherwise it's the same? Or are you actually saying that if there are, let's say, 3 items, you go \"2, 3, 4\" and end with 4 as your count?\n\nThe first one is basically the most useless idea I've ever seen someone write an entire post about, and the second one is just wrong for obvious reasons.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbkqs6u",
"parent_id": "188h3zh",
"score": 5,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "I was saying the first. Useless or not, it's an idea that's been rolling through my head for a bit, and other people have already shown me that I didn't consider it thoroughly enough.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbky465",
"parent_id": "kbkqs6u",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "188h3zh",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/"
},
{
"author": "Gladix",
"body": ">Places where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: Counting time in music:[...]\n\nWhy have multiple counting systems? Why not just use the one method even if it isn't the most optimal for every and all purposes?",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbkqyhj",
"parent_id": "188h3zh",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "We already have multiple counting systems, I am merely proposing adjusting one of them.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbkynz0",
"parent_id": "kbkqyhj",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "188h3zh",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/"
},
{
"author": "FlyingNFireType",
"body": "I've done inventory, if it's 1 you need to write down 1, if it's 0 (and there's a spot for it) you write down 0",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbkqzcz",
"parent_id": "188h3zh",
"score": 4,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "But are you counting when you are writing down that 0/1? You are glancing, you see that there is 1 or 0, and writing it down. The action of counting isn't being performed.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbl9dyt",
"parent_id": "kbkqzcz",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "188h3zh",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/"
},
{
"author": "Salanmander",
"body": "I'm not entirely clear on what you're suggesting. Is the change you're suggesting just \"if you are counting objects, you should always skip the first object and say or think 'two' as the first number word you use\"? Or are you suggesting a wider-reaching change than that?",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbkrrb2",
"parent_id": "188h3zh",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": ">if you are counting objects, you should always skip the first object and say or think 'two' as the first number word you use\n\nPrecisely that.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbl43to",
"parent_id": "kbkrrb2",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "188h3zh",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/"
},
{
"author": "MeanderingDuck",
"body": "And this accomplishes what, exactly? Counting is a straightforward process, why needlessly complicate it like this?",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbkspdl",
"parent_id": "188h3zh",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Does it need to accomplish anything? You are aware of the one, so counting it is needless.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbl478c",
"parent_id": "kbkspdl",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "188h3zh",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/"
},
{
"author": "kingpatzer",
"body": "We have a fleet of 11 aircraft carriers. How many are currently in port on the Eastern Seaboard.\n\nAnswer: 1",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbms5lj",
"parent_id": "188h3zh",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Did you count to 1 there, or just glance and know there was 1?",
"date": "2023-12-02",
"id": "kbrp73w",
"parent_id": "kbms5lj",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "188h3zh",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/"
},
{
"author": "ObviousSea9223",
"body": "Computers do need to deal in 0s and 1s, because they're using binary variables. The use of binary *numbers* comes from that, so they're analogs to the fact of binary states. A bit is fundamentally defined by the concept of 0/1. Renaming those numbers to anything else doesn't change what it is. A fundamental 1 and a fundamental 0.\n\nSo far, I think you agree.\n\nBut this is actually true everywhere else, too, when we're talking about discrete objects. It comes down to 0/1. One is defined against 0. Before you have 1, you have 0. If you count one object, you're actually counting from an implied zero to a one.\n\nSo you can't start at one, either. You actually have to start at 0. When you start at 1, you're counting from an implied zero, fundamentally. You went from 0 to 1 thing. It's important that we already don't jump the gun, and I'll explain why.\n\nImagine you're asked how many sheep are in the pen. There's two sheep. So would start at 0 and say \"One, two...two sheep.\" *Sounds* like starting at 1, right? Now, imagine there are no sheep in the pen, which is entirely reasonable with discrete objects. Do you start at 1 and then count -1 to get 0 sheep? Did you find a negative sheep to count in that process? Or actually work backwards, reflexively? Hopefully not. Why jump the gun? To get to one, you have to scan, identify a sheep, and then add it to the total. You finished the scan and did not identify a sheep, so you counted 0 sheep in the pen. This shouldn't leave you with an error, like you can't express or comprehend how many sheep are in the pen because there are none. It's just zero, which is exactly as natural as one.\n\nThat's where we start counting. So, you can't start at two. You can't even truly start at one. Of course, you can start making sounds out of your face hole at any number. Or none at all. After all, zero is always a possible count.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbn1d1s",
"parent_id": "188h3zh",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "The zero is an implied count in your example (even though as you say we start \"counting\" at 1, which sure, I agree with that). When you are looking at all the items present an counting, I am saying that the 1 can be implied also, since you can see that it's there and there are more than one. If you can't see that it's there, then you know you have zero, and you aren't counting that. If you can see only 1 is there, it's an obvious (since I looked up the term for someone else) subitizing action, and you don't actually count that one. You only actually start counting from higher numbers (5 being the suggested value from other people). This is only applicable when you can see all the items present. If you can't see them at the start, then they are only instantiating for you as you come across them, in which case subitizing doesn't happen and you are indeed counting from 1 or 0 as you would say.",
"date": "2023-12-02",
"id": "kbrquzi",
"parent_id": "kbn1d1s",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "188h3zh",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/"
},
{
"author": "ranman1990",
"body": "A simple counter argument:\n\nSome times you count things and do not know if there is zero, 1 or more than 1.\n\nExample: you want into a grocery and count how many of every item. You see a bike next to the door. You mark one then continue. It has a real chance of being the only bike there yet you didn't know that at the start so you still need to mark one.",
"date": "2023-12-02",
"id": "kbne9na",
"parent_id": "188h3zh",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Gave a delta to /u/Mitoza for items coming into existence (from your perspective, they obviously already exist).",
"date": "2023-12-02",
"id": "kbrs6gy",
"parent_id": "kbne9na",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "188h3zh",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/"
},
{
"author": "Guilty_Scar_730",
"body": "Wouldn’t this cause a lot of confusion between what system you’re using?\n\nFor example, most people don’t realize that years are ordinal numbers, meaning that there is no year 0 and against popular belief, the 21st century technically began at the start of 2001 not 2000. Adding another number system would produce more confusion like that without a clear benefits.",
"date": "2023-12-02",
"id": "kbo2scx",
"parent_id": "188h3zh",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "The number system isn't changing. You glance at a group of obviously discernible objects (say a pile of apples) and you don't bother counting the 1 since you can see it's there, and just start counting 2 apples, 3 apples etc...",
"date": "2023-12-02",
"id": "kbrq2g9",
"parent_id": "kbo2scx",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "188h3zh",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/"
},
{
"author": "Guilty_Scar_730",
"body": "If you are counting moving objects or a disorganized group of objects, it is important to identify the first object in the count as #1 as to not count it again as you count the other objects.",
"date": "2023-12-02",
"id": "kbo9fv5",
"parent_id": "188h3zh",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": ">a disorganized group of objects\n\nGave a delta for this on Christmas lights to /u/destro23\n\n>it may be helpful to be able to identify if the object that was #1\n\nThis is essentially the same answer as /u/Can-Funny with regard to assigning rank, and gave them a delta for that.",
"date": "2023-12-02",
"id": "kbrpvl8",
"parent_id": "kbo9fv5",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "188h3zh",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/"
},
{
"author": "franciosmardi",
"body": "So if I fart at the table after dinner, and say, \"one\" to indicate I am counting my farts, did I count \"1\"?",
"date": "2023-12-03",
"id": "kbwl03g",
"parent_id": "188h3zh",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Gave a delta for things that are coming into existence to /u/Mitoza",
"date": "2023-12-04",
"id": "kbzvi50",
"parent_id": "kbwl03g",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "188h3zh",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/"
},
{
"author": "AdamSchiffIsaPedo",
"body": "One always being present doesn't mean that you're not going to count it. Are you literally saying you're not counting when you place the first item into your counted pile but you don't say anything? You have to say the number for it to be counting? That's silly.",
"date": "2023-12-03",
"id": "kbwta0p",
"parent_id": "188h3zh",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "That was essentially what I was saying. You skip the counting action mentally or verbally because you recognize that you have more items.",
"date": "2023-12-04",
"id": "kbzvpkg",
"parent_id": "kbwta0p",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
]
]
| moderate |
[
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "188h3zh",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/"
},
{
"author": "XenoRyet",
"body": "Let's look at the Natural numbers. Doesn't get more discrete than that, does it?\n\nNow, let's say we want to count those numbers. Obviously we can't, because there are infinitely many of them, but let's say we just want to get started and see how far we can get.\n\nWhich number is the first one we count? I bet it's not two. This is because counting is a process, not a quantity. You begin that process by enumerating the first item being counted, and ends when you have enumerated all items in the set. So even in sets that contain only a single item, you still begin counting that set with that first item.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbkm3pz",
"parent_id": "188h3zh",
"score": 9,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "I should have phrased it as discrete objects instead of discrete units, which would have excluded the natural number set since a number is an abstraction rather than an object.\n\n!Delta for pointing out that counting abstractions doesn't require an assumed 1 as a starting point.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbkx61d",
"parent_id": "kbkm3pz",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "DeltaBot",
"body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/XenoRyet ([18∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/XenoRyet)).\n\n^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbkxayz",
"parent_id": "kbkx61d",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
]
| [
[
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "188h3zh",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/"
},
{
"author": "CallMeCorona1",
"body": "Counter-Examples:\n\n1. Army of one\n2. Commitee of one",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbklc5p",
"parent_id": "188h3zh",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "destro23",
"body": "One man band",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbks7js",
"parent_id": "kbklc5p",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "188h3zh",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/"
},
{
"author": "Drexelhand",
"body": ">you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item.\n\nif you have X of an item and it turns out to be 1 then it shouldn't be counted because you should have known it was only 1?",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbklgma",
"parent_id": "188h3zh",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "188h3zh",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/"
},
{
"author": "Brainsonastick",
"body": "My partner and I are baking. She asks me “how many eggs do you have?”\n\nI open the carton and count them. I only have one egg.\n\nWhat do I tell her?",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbkm50g",
"parent_id": "188h3zh",
"score": 29,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "DeathDestroyer90",
"body": "I egg",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbktyl5",
"parent_id": "kbkm50g",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "188h3zh",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/"
},
{
"author": "CBL44",
"body": "Why not 3? The simple point is you are never going to be counting if you only have two of said item. \n\nTheoretical it could be faster to start at 2 in your head but that not how our brains work. I point at every item and give a number because that's how my brain works. I could train it differently but why would I just to gain half a second?",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbkmu4s",
"parent_id": "188h3zh",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "If you are counting a lot, half seconds add up.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbkyz0n",
"parent_id": "kbkmu4s",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "188h3zh",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/"
},
{
"author": "2r1t",
"body": "I go to order supplies for the office. Some of the items will show a count of 1. The packing slip will show 1 of 1 or 0 of 1 depending on if it was in stock at the time of shipping. The invoice will show the same 1 count for items received which is then multipled by the per unit cost.\n\nThis is routine business where counts of 1 occur all the time.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbknnwu",
"parent_id": "188h3zh",
"score": 16,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Arguably when you are counting x out of y that is no longer discrete, but fractional, even if the x/y math equals an integer value.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbkwks4",
"parent_id": "kbknnwu",
"score": -3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "188h3zh",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/"
},
{
"author": "boney_blue",
"body": ">The simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\n \nI mean this just isn't true. I can tell someone to count how many boxes we have left, and the answer could be zero, one, or more than one. But when you are counting, the assumption that there is at least one of an item is not inherently true.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbkocbw",
"parent_id": "188h3zh",
"score": 7,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "When you tell someone to check how many boxes are left, they will immediately tell at a glance if there is only one or none left. They will only count if there are more.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbl09im",
"parent_id": "kbkocbw",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "188h3zh",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/"
},
{
"author": "BronzeSpoon89",
"body": "I think you are incorrect because \"you are never going to be counting if you HAVE ZERO OF THEM.\"",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbkp96u",
"parent_id": "188h3zh",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Seeing that only one item is present is clear at quick glance, which is why you wouldn't be counting at that point. /u/ququqachu pointed out that 5 is visible at quick glance, which would make my argument that hypothetically we should start counting at 5 (or 6 really since 5 is obvious)",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbkxuq8",
"parent_id": "kbkp96u",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "188h3zh",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/"
},
{
"author": "Creative-Pop2154",
"body": "I'm so confused, so are you saying that when counting out loud you just start with 2 but otherwise it's the same? Or are you actually saying that if there are, let's say, 3 items, you go \"2, 3, 4\" and end with 4 as your count?\n\nThe first one is basically the most useless idea I've ever seen someone write an entire post about, and the second one is just wrong for obvious reasons.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbkqs6u",
"parent_id": "188h3zh",
"score": 5,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "I was saying the first. Useless or not, it's an idea that's been rolling through my head for a bit, and other people have already shown me that I didn't consider it thoroughly enough.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbky465",
"parent_id": "kbkqs6u",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "188h3zh",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/"
},
{
"author": "Gladix",
"body": ">Places where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: Counting time in music:[...]\n\nWhy have multiple counting systems? Why not just use the one method even if it isn't the most optimal for every and all purposes?",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbkqyhj",
"parent_id": "188h3zh",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "We already have multiple counting systems, I am merely proposing adjusting one of them.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbkynz0",
"parent_id": "kbkqyhj",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "188h3zh",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/"
},
{
"author": "FlyingNFireType",
"body": "I've done inventory, if it's 1 you need to write down 1, if it's 0 (and there's a spot for it) you write down 0",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbkqzcz",
"parent_id": "188h3zh",
"score": 4,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "But are you counting when you are writing down that 0/1? You are glancing, you see that there is 1 or 0, and writing it down. The action of counting isn't being performed.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbl9dyt",
"parent_id": "kbkqzcz",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "188h3zh",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/"
},
{
"author": "Salanmander",
"body": "I'm not entirely clear on what you're suggesting. Is the change you're suggesting just \"if you are counting objects, you should always skip the first object and say or think 'two' as the first number word you use\"? Or are you suggesting a wider-reaching change than that?",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbkrrb2",
"parent_id": "188h3zh",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": ">if you are counting objects, you should always skip the first object and say or think 'two' as the first number word you use\n\nPrecisely that.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbl43to",
"parent_id": "kbkrrb2",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "188h3zh",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/"
},
{
"author": "MeanderingDuck",
"body": "And this accomplishes what, exactly? Counting is a straightforward process, why needlessly complicate it like this?",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbkspdl",
"parent_id": "188h3zh",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Does it need to accomplish anything? You are aware of the one, so counting it is needless.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbl478c",
"parent_id": "kbkspdl",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "188h3zh",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/"
},
{
"author": "kingpatzer",
"body": "We have a fleet of 11 aircraft carriers. How many are currently in port on the Eastern Seaboard.\n\nAnswer: 1",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbms5lj",
"parent_id": "188h3zh",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Did you count to 1 there, or just glance and know there was 1?",
"date": "2023-12-02",
"id": "kbrp73w",
"parent_id": "kbms5lj",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "188h3zh",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/"
},
{
"author": "ObviousSea9223",
"body": "Computers do need to deal in 0s and 1s, because they're using binary variables. The use of binary *numbers* comes from that, so they're analogs to the fact of binary states. A bit is fundamentally defined by the concept of 0/1. Renaming those numbers to anything else doesn't change what it is. A fundamental 1 and a fundamental 0.\n\nSo far, I think you agree.\n\nBut this is actually true everywhere else, too, when we're talking about discrete objects. It comes down to 0/1. One is defined against 0. Before you have 1, you have 0. If you count one object, you're actually counting from an implied zero to a one.\n\nSo you can't start at one, either. You actually have to start at 0. When you start at 1, you're counting from an implied zero, fundamentally. You went from 0 to 1 thing. It's important that we already don't jump the gun, and I'll explain why.\n\nImagine you're asked how many sheep are in the pen. There's two sheep. So would start at 0 and say \"One, two...two sheep.\" *Sounds* like starting at 1, right? Now, imagine there are no sheep in the pen, which is entirely reasonable with discrete objects. Do you start at 1 and then count -1 to get 0 sheep? Did you find a negative sheep to count in that process? Or actually work backwards, reflexively? Hopefully not. Why jump the gun? To get to one, you have to scan, identify a sheep, and then add it to the total. You finished the scan and did not identify a sheep, so you counted 0 sheep in the pen. This shouldn't leave you with an error, like you can't express or comprehend how many sheep are in the pen because there are none. It's just zero, which is exactly as natural as one.\n\nThat's where we start counting. So, you can't start at two. You can't even truly start at one. Of course, you can start making sounds out of your face hole at any number. Or none at all. After all, zero is always a possible count.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbn1d1s",
"parent_id": "188h3zh",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "The zero is an implied count in your example (even though as you say we start \"counting\" at 1, which sure, I agree with that). When you are looking at all the items present an counting, I am saying that the 1 can be implied also, since you can see that it's there and there are more than one. If you can't see that it's there, then you know you have zero, and you aren't counting that. If you can see only 1 is there, it's an obvious (since I looked up the term for someone else) subitizing action, and you don't actually count that one. You only actually start counting from higher numbers (5 being the suggested value from other people). This is only applicable when you can see all the items present. If you can't see them at the start, then they are only instantiating for you as you come across them, in which case subitizing doesn't happen and you are indeed counting from 1 or 0 as you would say.",
"date": "2023-12-02",
"id": "kbrquzi",
"parent_id": "kbn1d1s",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "188h3zh",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/"
},
{
"author": "ranman1990",
"body": "A simple counter argument:\n\nSome times you count things and do not know if there is zero, 1 or more than 1.\n\nExample: you want into a grocery and count how many of every item. You see a bike next to the door. You mark one then continue. It has a real chance of being the only bike there yet you didn't know that at the start so you still need to mark one.",
"date": "2023-12-02",
"id": "kbne9na",
"parent_id": "188h3zh",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Gave a delta to /u/Mitoza for items coming into existence (from your perspective, they obviously already exist).",
"date": "2023-12-02",
"id": "kbrs6gy",
"parent_id": "kbne9na",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "188h3zh",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/"
},
{
"author": "Guilty_Scar_730",
"body": "Wouldn’t this cause a lot of confusion between what system you’re using?\n\nFor example, most people don’t realize that years are ordinal numbers, meaning that there is no year 0 and against popular belief, the 21st century technically began at the start of 2001 not 2000. Adding another number system would produce more confusion like that without a clear benefits.",
"date": "2023-12-02",
"id": "kbo2scx",
"parent_id": "188h3zh",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "The number system isn't changing. You glance at a group of obviously discernible objects (say a pile of apples) and you don't bother counting the 1 since you can see it's there, and just start counting 2 apples, 3 apples etc...",
"date": "2023-12-02",
"id": "kbrq2g9",
"parent_id": "kbo2scx",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "188h3zh",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/"
},
{
"author": "Guilty_Scar_730",
"body": "If you are counting moving objects or a disorganized group of objects, it is important to identify the first object in the count as #1 as to not count it again as you count the other objects.",
"date": "2023-12-02",
"id": "kbo9fv5",
"parent_id": "188h3zh",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": ">a disorganized group of objects\n\nGave a delta for this on Christmas lights to /u/destro23\n\n>it may be helpful to be able to identify if the object that was #1\n\nThis is essentially the same answer as /u/Can-Funny with regard to assigning rank, and gave them a delta for that.",
"date": "2023-12-02",
"id": "kbrpvl8",
"parent_id": "kbo9fv5",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "188h3zh",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/"
},
{
"author": "franciosmardi",
"body": "So if I fart at the table after dinner, and say, \"one\" to indicate I am counting my farts, did I count \"1\"?",
"date": "2023-12-03",
"id": "kbwl03g",
"parent_id": "188h3zh",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Gave a delta for things that are coming into existence to /u/Mitoza",
"date": "2023-12-04",
"id": "kbzvi50",
"parent_id": "kbwl03g",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "188h3zh",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/"
},
{
"author": "AdamSchiffIsaPedo",
"body": "One always being present doesn't mean that you're not going to count it. Are you literally saying you're not counting when you place the first item into your counted pile but you don't say anything? You have to say the number for it to be counting? That's silly.",
"date": "2023-12-03",
"id": "kbwta0p",
"parent_id": "188h3zh",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "That was essentially what I was saying. You skip the counting action mentally or verbally because you recognize that you have more items.",
"date": "2023-12-04",
"id": "kbzvpkg",
"parent_id": "kbwta0p",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
]
]
| challenge |
[
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "188h3zh",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/"
},
{
"author": "destro23",
"body": ">The simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item.\n\n\"Hey son, see that tangle of Christmas lights? Straighten them out and see how many there are wound up in there.\"\n\n\"Hey day, there's only one.\"\n\nAlternatively:\n\n[Drop and give me 20!](https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=njnNSmoht-E)",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbkrksl",
"parent_id": "188h3zh",
"score": 5,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "For the pushups, that would fall under the delta I gave \\u\\Mitoza for counting things as they come into existence (your completed pushups don't exist until you perform them).\n\n!Delta for the lights though. It is a singular discrete unit that isn't obvious at a glance.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbl5frh",
"parent_id": "kbkrksl",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "DeltaBot",
"body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/destro23 ([306∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/destro23)).\n\n^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbl5jmk",
"parent_id": "kbl5frh",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
]
| [
[
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "188h3zh",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/"
},
{
"author": "CallMeCorona1",
"body": "Counter-Examples:\n\n1. Army of one\n2. Commitee of one",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbklc5p",
"parent_id": "188h3zh",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "destro23",
"body": "One man band",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbks7js",
"parent_id": "kbklc5p",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "188h3zh",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/"
},
{
"author": "Drexelhand",
"body": ">you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item.\n\nif you have X of an item and it turns out to be 1 then it shouldn't be counted because you should have known it was only 1?",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbklgma",
"parent_id": "188h3zh",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "188h3zh",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/"
},
{
"author": "Brainsonastick",
"body": "My partner and I are baking. She asks me “how many eggs do you have?”\n\nI open the carton and count them. I only have one egg.\n\nWhat do I tell her?",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbkm50g",
"parent_id": "188h3zh",
"score": 29,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "DeathDestroyer90",
"body": "I egg",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbktyl5",
"parent_id": "kbkm50g",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "188h3zh",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/"
},
{
"author": "CBL44",
"body": "Why not 3? The simple point is you are never going to be counting if you only have two of said item. \n\nTheoretical it could be faster to start at 2 in your head but that not how our brains work. I point at every item and give a number because that's how my brain works. I could train it differently but why would I just to gain half a second?",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbkmu4s",
"parent_id": "188h3zh",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "If you are counting a lot, half seconds add up.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbkyz0n",
"parent_id": "kbkmu4s",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "188h3zh",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/"
},
{
"author": "2r1t",
"body": "I go to order supplies for the office. Some of the items will show a count of 1. The packing slip will show 1 of 1 or 0 of 1 depending on if it was in stock at the time of shipping. The invoice will show the same 1 count for items received which is then multipled by the per unit cost.\n\nThis is routine business where counts of 1 occur all the time.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbknnwu",
"parent_id": "188h3zh",
"score": 16,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Arguably when you are counting x out of y that is no longer discrete, but fractional, even if the x/y math equals an integer value.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbkwks4",
"parent_id": "kbknnwu",
"score": -3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "188h3zh",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/"
},
{
"author": "boney_blue",
"body": ">The simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\n \nI mean this just isn't true. I can tell someone to count how many boxes we have left, and the answer could be zero, one, or more than one. But when you are counting, the assumption that there is at least one of an item is not inherently true.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbkocbw",
"parent_id": "188h3zh",
"score": 7,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "When you tell someone to check how many boxes are left, they will immediately tell at a glance if there is only one or none left. They will only count if there are more.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbl09im",
"parent_id": "kbkocbw",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "188h3zh",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/"
},
{
"author": "BronzeSpoon89",
"body": "I think you are incorrect because \"you are never going to be counting if you HAVE ZERO OF THEM.\"",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbkp96u",
"parent_id": "188h3zh",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Seeing that only one item is present is clear at quick glance, which is why you wouldn't be counting at that point. /u/ququqachu pointed out that 5 is visible at quick glance, which would make my argument that hypothetically we should start counting at 5 (or 6 really since 5 is obvious)",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbkxuq8",
"parent_id": "kbkp96u",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "188h3zh",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/"
},
{
"author": "Creative-Pop2154",
"body": "I'm so confused, so are you saying that when counting out loud you just start with 2 but otherwise it's the same? Or are you actually saying that if there are, let's say, 3 items, you go \"2, 3, 4\" and end with 4 as your count?\n\nThe first one is basically the most useless idea I've ever seen someone write an entire post about, and the second one is just wrong for obvious reasons.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbkqs6u",
"parent_id": "188h3zh",
"score": 5,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "I was saying the first. Useless or not, it's an idea that's been rolling through my head for a bit, and other people have already shown me that I didn't consider it thoroughly enough.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbky465",
"parent_id": "kbkqs6u",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "188h3zh",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/"
},
{
"author": "Gladix",
"body": ">Places where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: Counting time in music:[...]\n\nWhy have multiple counting systems? Why not just use the one method even if it isn't the most optimal for every and all purposes?",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbkqyhj",
"parent_id": "188h3zh",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "We already have multiple counting systems, I am merely proposing adjusting one of them.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbkynz0",
"parent_id": "kbkqyhj",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "188h3zh",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/"
},
{
"author": "FlyingNFireType",
"body": "I've done inventory, if it's 1 you need to write down 1, if it's 0 (and there's a spot for it) you write down 0",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbkqzcz",
"parent_id": "188h3zh",
"score": 4,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "But are you counting when you are writing down that 0/1? You are glancing, you see that there is 1 or 0, and writing it down. The action of counting isn't being performed.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbl9dyt",
"parent_id": "kbkqzcz",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "188h3zh",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/"
},
{
"author": "Salanmander",
"body": "I'm not entirely clear on what you're suggesting. Is the change you're suggesting just \"if you are counting objects, you should always skip the first object and say or think 'two' as the first number word you use\"? Or are you suggesting a wider-reaching change than that?",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbkrrb2",
"parent_id": "188h3zh",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": ">if you are counting objects, you should always skip the first object and say or think 'two' as the first number word you use\n\nPrecisely that.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbl43to",
"parent_id": "kbkrrb2",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "188h3zh",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/"
},
{
"author": "MeanderingDuck",
"body": "And this accomplishes what, exactly? Counting is a straightforward process, why needlessly complicate it like this?",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbkspdl",
"parent_id": "188h3zh",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Does it need to accomplish anything? You are aware of the one, so counting it is needless.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbl478c",
"parent_id": "kbkspdl",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "188h3zh",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/"
},
{
"author": "kingpatzer",
"body": "We have a fleet of 11 aircraft carriers. How many are currently in port on the Eastern Seaboard.\n\nAnswer: 1",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbms5lj",
"parent_id": "188h3zh",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Did you count to 1 there, or just glance and know there was 1?",
"date": "2023-12-02",
"id": "kbrp73w",
"parent_id": "kbms5lj",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "188h3zh",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/"
},
{
"author": "ObviousSea9223",
"body": "Computers do need to deal in 0s and 1s, because they're using binary variables. The use of binary *numbers* comes from that, so they're analogs to the fact of binary states. A bit is fundamentally defined by the concept of 0/1. Renaming those numbers to anything else doesn't change what it is. A fundamental 1 and a fundamental 0.\n\nSo far, I think you agree.\n\nBut this is actually true everywhere else, too, when we're talking about discrete objects. It comes down to 0/1. One is defined against 0. Before you have 1, you have 0. If you count one object, you're actually counting from an implied zero to a one.\n\nSo you can't start at one, either. You actually have to start at 0. When you start at 1, you're counting from an implied zero, fundamentally. You went from 0 to 1 thing. It's important that we already don't jump the gun, and I'll explain why.\n\nImagine you're asked how many sheep are in the pen. There's two sheep. So would start at 0 and say \"One, two...two sheep.\" *Sounds* like starting at 1, right? Now, imagine there are no sheep in the pen, which is entirely reasonable with discrete objects. Do you start at 1 and then count -1 to get 0 sheep? Did you find a negative sheep to count in that process? Or actually work backwards, reflexively? Hopefully not. Why jump the gun? To get to one, you have to scan, identify a sheep, and then add it to the total. You finished the scan and did not identify a sheep, so you counted 0 sheep in the pen. This shouldn't leave you with an error, like you can't express or comprehend how many sheep are in the pen because there are none. It's just zero, which is exactly as natural as one.\n\nThat's where we start counting. So, you can't start at two. You can't even truly start at one. Of course, you can start making sounds out of your face hole at any number. Or none at all. After all, zero is always a possible count.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbn1d1s",
"parent_id": "188h3zh",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "The zero is an implied count in your example (even though as you say we start \"counting\" at 1, which sure, I agree with that). When you are looking at all the items present an counting, I am saying that the 1 can be implied also, since you can see that it's there and there are more than one. If you can't see that it's there, then you know you have zero, and you aren't counting that. If you can see only 1 is there, it's an obvious (since I looked up the term for someone else) subitizing action, and you don't actually count that one. You only actually start counting from higher numbers (5 being the suggested value from other people). This is only applicable when you can see all the items present. If you can't see them at the start, then they are only instantiating for you as you come across them, in which case subitizing doesn't happen and you are indeed counting from 1 or 0 as you would say.",
"date": "2023-12-02",
"id": "kbrquzi",
"parent_id": "kbn1d1s",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "188h3zh",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/"
},
{
"author": "ranman1990",
"body": "A simple counter argument:\n\nSome times you count things and do not know if there is zero, 1 or more than 1.\n\nExample: you want into a grocery and count how many of every item. You see a bike next to the door. You mark one then continue. It has a real chance of being the only bike there yet you didn't know that at the start so you still need to mark one.",
"date": "2023-12-02",
"id": "kbne9na",
"parent_id": "188h3zh",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Gave a delta to /u/Mitoza for items coming into existence (from your perspective, they obviously already exist).",
"date": "2023-12-02",
"id": "kbrs6gy",
"parent_id": "kbne9na",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "188h3zh",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/"
},
{
"author": "Guilty_Scar_730",
"body": "Wouldn’t this cause a lot of confusion between what system you’re using?\n\nFor example, most people don’t realize that years are ordinal numbers, meaning that there is no year 0 and against popular belief, the 21st century technically began at the start of 2001 not 2000. Adding another number system would produce more confusion like that without a clear benefits.",
"date": "2023-12-02",
"id": "kbo2scx",
"parent_id": "188h3zh",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "The number system isn't changing. You glance at a group of obviously discernible objects (say a pile of apples) and you don't bother counting the 1 since you can see it's there, and just start counting 2 apples, 3 apples etc...",
"date": "2023-12-02",
"id": "kbrq2g9",
"parent_id": "kbo2scx",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "188h3zh",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/"
},
{
"author": "Guilty_Scar_730",
"body": "If you are counting moving objects or a disorganized group of objects, it is important to identify the first object in the count as #1 as to not count it again as you count the other objects.",
"date": "2023-12-02",
"id": "kbo9fv5",
"parent_id": "188h3zh",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": ">a disorganized group of objects\n\nGave a delta for this on Christmas lights to /u/destro23\n\n>it may be helpful to be able to identify if the object that was #1\n\nThis is essentially the same answer as /u/Can-Funny with regard to assigning rank, and gave them a delta for that.",
"date": "2023-12-02",
"id": "kbrpvl8",
"parent_id": "kbo9fv5",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "188h3zh",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/"
},
{
"author": "franciosmardi",
"body": "So if I fart at the table after dinner, and say, \"one\" to indicate I am counting my farts, did I count \"1\"?",
"date": "2023-12-03",
"id": "kbwl03g",
"parent_id": "188h3zh",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Gave a delta for things that are coming into existence to /u/Mitoza",
"date": "2023-12-04",
"id": "kbzvi50",
"parent_id": "kbwl03g",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "188h3zh",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/"
},
{
"author": "AdamSchiffIsaPedo",
"body": "One always being present doesn't mean that you're not going to count it. Are you literally saying you're not counting when you place the first item into your counted pile but you don't say anything? You have to say the number for it to be counting? That's silly.",
"date": "2023-12-03",
"id": "kbwta0p",
"parent_id": "188h3zh",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "That was essentially what I was saying. You skip the counting action mentally or verbally because you recognize that you have more items.",
"date": "2023-12-04",
"id": "kbzvpkg",
"parent_id": "kbwta0p",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
]
]
| challenge |
[
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "188h3zh",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/"
},
{
"author": "jatjqtjat",
"body": ">The simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item.\n\nhumans can usually intuit numbers up to about 5 without counting. If i have 5 apples, you can know that i have 5 just by looking at them. For 5 or less things, you don't need to count.\n\nIf i have 8 apples you can know that i have 8 by seeing two groups 5 and 3. You still don't need to count.\n\nIf I have 30 apples you have to count to see how many I have. Even with grouping, you cannot just see the number. At this point the way counting works is that you assign a number to each apple and when you have no apples left, the last number used is the number of apples I have. If you started at 2 that system would not work right.\n\nIf you just skip saying 1 on the first apple and start on apple number 2, then keep going in that fashion and you'll be counting by 2s. 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 and this is often a faster way to count. \n\nand since you can intuited up to about 5 things, and because we use a 10 based number system, you can easily count by 5s: 5, 10, 15, 20. Its very fast especially if you don't care about being off by a small amount.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbl2x6m",
"parent_id": "188h3zh",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Already awarded a delta for intuiting up to 5 to \\u\\ququqachu. Counting by 2s or 5s being an option I didn't think of is also very good though. !Delta.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbl87lf",
"parent_id": "kbl2x6m",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "DeltaBot",
"body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/jatjqtjat ([205∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/jatjqtjat)).\n\n^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbl8bxe",
"parent_id": "kbl87lf",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
]
| [
[
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "188h3zh",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/"
},
{
"author": "CallMeCorona1",
"body": "Counter-Examples:\n\n1. Army of one\n2. Commitee of one",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbklc5p",
"parent_id": "188h3zh",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "destro23",
"body": "One man band",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbks7js",
"parent_id": "kbklc5p",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "188h3zh",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/"
},
{
"author": "Drexelhand",
"body": ">you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item.\n\nif you have X of an item and it turns out to be 1 then it shouldn't be counted because you should have known it was only 1?",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbklgma",
"parent_id": "188h3zh",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "188h3zh",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/"
},
{
"author": "Brainsonastick",
"body": "My partner and I are baking. She asks me “how many eggs do you have?”\n\nI open the carton and count them. I only have one egg.\n\nWhat do I tell her?",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbkm50g",
"parent_id": "188h3zh",
"score": 29,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "DeathDestroyer90",
"body": "I egg",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbktyl5",
"parent_id": "kbkm50g",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "188h3zh",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/"
},
{
"author": "CBL44",
"body": "Why not 3? The simple point is you are never going to be counting if you only have two of said item. \n\nTheoretical it could be faster to start at 2 in your head but that not how our brains work. I point at every item and give a number because that's how my brain works. I could train it differently but why would I just to gain half a second?",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbkmu4s",
"parent_id": "188h3zh",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "If you are counting a lot, half seconds add up.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbkyz0n",
"parent_id": "kbkmu4s",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "188h3zh",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/"
},
{
"author": "2r1t",
"body": "I go to order supplies for the office. Some of the items will show a count of 1. The packing slip will show 1 of 1 or 0 of 1 depending on if it was in stock at the time of shipping. The invoice will show the same 1 count for items received which is then multipled by the per unit cost.\n\nThis is routine business where counts of 1 occur all the time.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbknnwu",
"parent_id": "188h3zh",
"score": 16,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Arguably when you are counting x out of y that is no longer discrete, but fractional, even if the x/y math equals an integer value.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbkwks4",
"parent_id": "kbknnwu",
"score": -3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "188h3zh",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/"
},
{
"author": "boney_blue",
"body": ">The simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\n \nI mean this just isn't true. I can tell someone to count how many boxes we have left, and the answer could be zero, one, or more than one. But when you are counting, the assumption that there is at least one of an item is not inherently true.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbkocbw",
"parent_id": "188h3zh",
"score": 7,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "When you tell someone to check how many boxes are left, they will immediately tell at a glance if there is only one or none left. They will only count if there are more.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbl09im",
"parent_id": "kbkocbw",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "188h3zh",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/"
},
{
"author": "BronzeSpoon89",
"body": "I think you are incorrect because \"you are never going to be counting if you HAVE ZERO OF THEM.\"",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbkp96u",
"parent_id": "188h3zh",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Seeing that only one item is present is clear at quick glance, which is why you wouldn't be counting at that point. /u/ququqachu pointed out that 5 is visible at quick glance, which would make my argument that hypothetically we should start counting at 5 (or 6 really since 5 is obvious)",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbkxuq8",
"parent_id": "kbkp96u",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "188h3zh",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/"
},
{
"author": "Creative-Pop2154",
"body": "I'm so confused, so are you saying that when counting out loud you just start with 2 but otherwise it's the same? Or are you actually saying that if there are, let's say, 3 items, you go \"2, 3, 4\" and end with 4 as your count?\n\nThe first one is basically the most useless idea I've ever seen someone write an entire post about, and the second one is just wrong for obvious reasons.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbkqs6u",
"parent_id": "188h3zh",
"score": 5,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "I was saying the first. Useless or not, it's an idea that's been rolling through my head for a bit, and other people have already shown me that I didn't consider it thoroughly enough.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbky465",
"parent_id": "kbkqs6u",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "188h3zh",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/"
},
{
"author": "Gladix",
"body": ">Places where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: Counting time in music:[...]\n\nWhy have multiple counting systems? Why not just use the one method even if it isn't the most optimal for every and all purposes?",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbkqyhj",
"parent_id": "188h3zh",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "We already have multiple counting systems, I am merely proposing adjusting one of them.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbkynz0",
"parent_id": "kbkqyhj",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "188h3zh",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/"
},
{
"author": "FlyingNFireType",
"body": "I've done inventory, if it's 1 you need to write down 1, if it's 0 (and there's a spot for it) you write down 0",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbkqzcz",
"parent_id": "188h3zh",
"score": 4,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "But are you counting when you are writing down that 0/1? You are glancing, you see that there is 1 or 0, and writing it down. The action of counting isn't being performed.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbl9dyt",
"parent_id": "kbkqzcz",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "188h3zh",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/"
},
{
"author": "Salanmander",
"body": "I'm not entirely clear on what you're suggesting. Is the change you're suggesting just \"if you are counting objects, you should always skip the first object and say or think 'two' as the first number word you use\"? Or are you suggesting a wider-reaching change than that?",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbkrrb2",
"parent_id": "188h3zh",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": ">if you are counting objects, you should always skip the first object and say or think 'two' as the first number word you use\n\nPrecisely that.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbl43to",
"parent_id": "kbkrrb2",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "188h3zh",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/"
},
{
"author": "MeanderingDuck",
"body": "And this accomplishes what, exactly? Counting is a straightforward process, why needlessly complicate it like this?",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbkspdl",
"parent_id": "188h3zh",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Does it need to accomplish anything? You are aware of the one, so counting it is needless.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbl478c",
"parent_id": "kbkspdl",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "188h3zh",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/"
},
{
"author": "kingpatzer",
"body": "We have a fleet of 11 aircraft carriers. How many are currently in port on the Eastern Seaboard.\n\nAnswer: 1",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbms5lj",
"parent_id": "188h3zh",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Did you count to 1 there, or just glance and know there was 1?",
"date": "2023-12-02",
"id": "kbrp73w",
"parent_id": "kbms5lj",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "188h3zh",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/"
},
{
"author": "ObviousSea9223",
"body": "Computers do need to deal in 0s and 1s, because they're using binary variables. The use of binary *numbers* comes from that, so they're analogs to the fact of binary states. A bit is fundamentally defined by the concept of 0/1. Renaming those numbers to anything else doesn't change what it is. A fundamental 1 and a fundamental 0.\n\nSo far, I think you agree.\n\nBut this is actually true everywhere else, too, when we're talking about discrete objects. It comes down to 0/1. One is defined against 0. Before you have 1, you have 0. If you count one object, you're actually counting from an implied zero to a one.\n\nSo you can't start at one, either. You actually have to start at 0. When you start at 1, you're counting from an implied zero, fundamentally. You went from 0 to 1 thing. It's important that we already don't jump the gun, and I'll explain why.\n\nImagine you're asked how many sheep are in the pen. There's two sheep. So would start at 0 and say \"One, two...two sheep.\" *Sounds* like starting at 1, right? Now, imagine there are no sheep in the pen, which is entirely reasonable with discrete objects. Do you start at 1 and then count -1 to get 0 sheep? Did you find a negative sheep to count in that process? Or actually work backwards, reflexively? Hopefully not. Why jump the gun? To get to one, you have to scan, identify a sheep, and then add it to the total. You finished the scan and did not identify a sheep, so you counted 0 sheep in the pen. This shouldn't leave you with an error, like you can't express or comprehend how many sheep are in the pen because there are none. It's just zero, which is exactly as natural as one.\n\nThat's where we start counting. So, you can't start at two. You can't even truly start at one. Of course, you can start making sounds out of your face hole at any number. Or none at all. After all, zero is always a possible count.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "kbn1d1s",
"parent_id": "188h3zh",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "The zero is an implied count in your example (even though as you say we start \"counting\" at 1, which sure, I agree with that). When you are looking at all the items present an counting, I am saying that the 1 can be implied also, since you can see that it's there and there are more than one. If you can't see that it's there, then you know you have zero, and you aren't counting that. If you can see only 1 is there, it's an obvious (since I looked up the term for someone else) subitizing action, and you don't actually count that one. You only actually start counting from higher numbers (5 being the suggested value from other people). This is only applicable when you can see all the items present. If you can't see them at the start, then they are only instantiating for you as you come across them, in which case subitizing doesn't happen and you are indeed counting from 1 or 0 as you would say.",
"date": "2023-12-02",
"id": "kbrquzi",
"parent_id": "kbn1d1s",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "188h3zh",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/"
},
{
"author": "ranman1990",
"body": "A simple counter argument:\n\nSome times you count things and do not know if there is zero, 1 or more than 1.\n\nExample: you want into a grocery and count how many of every item. You see a bike next to the door. You mark one then continue. It has a real chance of being the only bike there yet you didn't know that at the start so you still need to mark one.",
"date": "2023-12-02",
"id": "kbne9na",
"parent_id": "188h3zh",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Gave a delta to /u/Mitoza for items coming into existence (from your perspective, they obviously already exist).",
"date": "2023-12-02",
"id": "kbrs6gy",
"parent_id": "kbne9na",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "188h3zh",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/"
},
{
"author": "Guilty_Scar_730",
"body": "Wouldn’t this cause a lot of confusion between what system you’re using?\n\nFor example, most people don’t realize that years are ordinal numbers, meaning that there is no year 0 and against popular belief, the 21st century technically began at the start of 2001 not 2000. Adding another number system would produce more confusion like that without a clear benefits.",
"date": "2023-12-02",
"id": "kbo2scx",
"parent_id": "188h3zh",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "The number system isn't changing. You glance at a group of obviously discernible objects (say a pile of apples) and you don't bother counting the 1 since you can see it's there, and just start counting 2 apples, 3 apples etc...",
"date": "2023-12-02",
"id": "kbrq2g9",
"parent_id": "kbo2scx",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "188h3zh",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/"
},
{
"author": "Guilty_Scar_730",
"body": "If you are counting moving objects or a disorganized group of objects, it is important to identify the first object in the count as #1 as to not count it again as you count the other objects.",
"date": "2023-12-02",
"id": "kbo9fv5",
"parent_id": "188h3zh",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": ">a disorganized group of objects\n\nGave a delta for this on Christmas lights to /u/destro23\n\n>it may be helpful to be able to identify if the object that was #1\n\nThis is essentially the same answer as /u/Can-Funny with regard to assigning rank, and gave them a delta for that.",
"date": "2023-12-02",
"id": "kbrpvl8",
"parent_id": "kbo9fv5",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "188h3zh",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/"
},
{
"author": "franciosmardi",
"body": "So if I fart at the table after dinner, and say, \"one\" to indicate I am counting my farts, did I count \"1\"?",
"date": "2023-12-03",
"id": "kbwl03g",
"parent_id": "188h3zh",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Gave a delta for things that are coming into existence to /u/Mitoza",
"date": "2023-12-04",
"id": "kbzvi50",
"parent_id": "kbwl03g",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
"date": "2023-12-01",
"id": "188h3zh",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/"
},
{
"author": "AdamSchiffIsaPedo",
"body": "One always being present doesn't mean that you're not going to count it. Are you literally saying you're not counting when you place the first item into your counted pile but you don't say anything? You have to say the number for it to be counting? That's silly.",
"date": "2023-12-03",
"id": "kbwta0p",
"parent_id": "188h3zh",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Tuvinator",
"body": "That was essentially what I was saying. You skip the counting action mentally or verbally because you recognize that you have more items.",
"date": "2023-12-04",
"id": "kbzvpkg",
"parent_id": "kbwta0p",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
]
]
| moderate |
[
{
"author": "IDislikeHomonyms",
"body": "I'll patiently wait for selective memory-erasure treatments to become available. \n\nCombat veterans need this too. After all, what else causes their 22 suicides a day in America besides bad battlefield memories and flashbacks in their dreams?\n\nIf I could selectively erase all bad memories that I have no interest in keeping, would I become a happier, cheerier man? Or would there be some unintended side-effects that I'd be happy to do without?\n\nIf there are negative effects due to bugs and unforeseen issues, I'll wait longer for them to work out the kinks and re-release a better version of the SMET - Selective Memory Erasure Treatment.\n\nBut is there anything I should be aware of that would be the cons to undergoing this treatment, that cannot simply be updated with a patch/update/debugging of the treatment?\n\nWhy should I not undergo this once the means to make this treatment possible, become available?\n\nSince I assume I can't post links to YouTube from here, just search ***Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind official trailer*** on there to get a better idea of what I'm talking about.",
"date": "2023-12-17",
"id": "18kako4",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: I really think I should get the selective memory-erasure treatment (as depicted in the Jim Carrey film \"Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind\") in order to erase all unwanted bad memories of betrayals, failures and so on, once it becomes available to the public.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18kako4/cmv_i_really_think_i_should_get_the_selective/"
},
{
"author": "Adorable-Volume2247",
"body": "\nBad experiences and trauma are opportunities for self-improvement, and often bring about a greater good. This is why pain exists, if you edit out (say) the memory of being burned by a hot stove, you'd do it again.\n\nNot to mention, if this existed, it would become a tool for oppression and abuse. If no one remembered the Holocaust or chattle Slavery, would society be better?",
"date": "2023-12-17",
"id": "kdtfhjx",
"parent_id": "18kako4",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "IDislikeHomonyms",
"body": "Very good points. I guess erasing bad memories could cause more problems than they solve. !delta",
"date": "2023-12-17",
"id": "kdu0h0u",
"parent_id": "kdtfhjx",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "DeltaBot",
"body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Adorable-Volume2247 ([1∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Adorable-Volume2247)).\n\n^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
"date": "2023-12-17",
"id": "kdu0koo",
"parent_id": "kdu0h0u",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
]
| [
[
{
"author": "IDislikeHomonyms",
"body": "I'll patiently wait for selective memory-erasure treatments to become available. \n\nCombat veterans need this too. After all, what else causes their 22 suicides a day in America besides bad battlefield memories and flashbacks in their dreams?\n\nIf I could selectively erase all bad memories that I have no interest in keeping, would I become a happier, cheerier man? Or would there be some unintended side-effects that I'd be happy to do without?\n\nIf there are negative effects due to bugs and unforeseen issues, I'll wait longer for them to work out the kinks and re-release a better version of the SMET - Selective Memory Erasure Treatment.\n\nBut is there anything I should be aware of that would be the cons to undergoing this treatment, that cannot simply be updated with a patch/update/debugging of the treatment?\n\nWhy should I not undergo this once the means to make this treatment possible, become available?\n\nSince I assume I can't post links to YouTube from here, just search ***Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind official trailer*** on there to get a better idea of what I'm talking about.",
"date": "2023-12-17",
"id": "18kako4",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: I really think I should get the selective memory-erasure treatment (as depicted in the Jim Carrey film \"Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind\") in order to erase all unwanted bad memories of betrayals, failures and so on, once it becomes available to the public.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18kako4/cmv_i_really_think_i_should_get_the_selective/"
},
{
"author": "Hellioning",
"body": "Well, if you can't remember ever being betrayed or failing, how will you handle situations where you could be betrayed or failing? Would you keep going under the assumption that it's impossible for you to be betrayed or fail? Wouldn't this cause you to become an overly-trusting, overconfident person?",
"date": "2023-12-17",
"id": "kdq1o1p",
"parent_id": "18kako4",
"score": 11,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "IDislikeHomonyms",
"body": "I'll patiently wait for selective memory-erasure treatments to become available. \n\nCombat veterans need this too. After all, what else causes their 22 suicides a day in America besides bad battlefield memories and flashbacks in their dreams?\n\nIf I could selectively erase all bad memories that I have no interest in keeping, would I become a happier, cheerier man? Or would there be some unintended side-effects that I'd be happy to do without?\n\nIf there are negative effects due to bugs and unforeseen issues, I'll wait longer for them to work out the kinks and re-release a better version of the SMET - Selective Memory Erasure Treatment.\n\nBut is there anything I should be aware of that would be the cons to undergoing this treatment, that cannot simply be updated with a patch/update/debugging of the treatment?\n\nWhy should I not undergo this once the means to make this treatment possible, become available?\n\nSince I assume I can't post links to YouTube from here, just search ***Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind official trailer*** on there to get a better idea of what I'm talking about.",
"date": "2023-12-17",
"id": "18kako4",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: I really think I should get the selective memory-erasure treatment (as depicted in the Jim Carrey film \"Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind\") in order to erase all unwanted bad memories of betrayals, failures and so on, once it becomes available to the public.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18kako4/cmv_i_really_think_i_should_get_the_selective/"
},
{
"author": "KokonutMonkey",
"body": "This belongs on an advice sub. \n\nEither way, you should abandon this view because it depends on the existence of something that does not actually exist. You might as well say I should move to the space colonies (as depicted in Mobile Suit Gundam) once they're built. \n\n>If there are negative effects due to bugs and unforeseen issues, I'll wait longer for them to work out the kinks and re-release a better version of the SMET - Selective Memory Erasure Treatment.\n\nToo many IFs here. Who's to say they whoever makes this non-existent technology will not be able to work out the kinks before you die. It's possible you might be too old. It's possible it might be too expensive.",
"date": "2023-12-17",
"id": "kdq1xch",
"parent_id": "18kako4",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "IDislikeHomonyms",
"body": "As computers keep getting faster, technology will advance faster. I am confident that this technology will arrive while I'm still alive, barring a nuclear war.",
"date": "2023-12-17",
"id": "kdq39cv",
"parent_id": "kdq1xch",
"score": -1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "IDislikeHomonyms",
"body": "I'll patiently wait for selective memory-erasure treatments to become available. \n\nCombat veterans need this too. After all, what else causes their 22 suicides a day in America besides bad battlefield memories and flashbacks in their dreams?\n\nIf I could selectively erase all bad memories that I have no interest in keeping, would I become a happier, cheerier man? Or would there be some unintended side-effects that I'd be happy to do without?\n\nIf there are negative effects due to bugs and unforeseen issues, I'll wait longer for them to work out the kinks and re-release a better version of the SMET - Selective Memory Erasure Treatment.\n\nBut is there anything I should be aware of that would be the cons to undergoing this treatment, that cannot simply be updated with a patch/update/debugging of the treatment?\n\nWhy should I not undergo this once the means to make this treatment possible, become available?\n\nSince I assume I can't post links to YouTube from here, just search ***Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind official trailer*** on there to get a better idea of what I'm talking about.",
"date": "2023-12-17",
"id": "18kako4",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: I really think I should get the selective memory-erasure treatment (as depicted in the Jim Carrey film \"Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind\") in order to erase all unwanted bad memories of betrayals, failures and so on, once it becomes available to the public.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18kako4/cmv_i_really_think_i_should_get_the_selective/"
},
{
"author": "AdhesiveSpinach",
"body": "Because it probably won't fix the problem. \n\nThe body remembers. Even if the mind forgets. That's why you can get people who sustained serious trauma in their childhood but don't actually have memories of the event, yet their bodies still react to triggers in the same way a person would if they remembered what happened to them. But, its almost worse because you don't really understand why you're having a trauma response or a somatic flashback, and its more difficult to work on because you don't even really know what happened to you. \n\nThe brain is very complex. You can erase higher level memories, but your reptile brain and body store information in a very different way.",
"date": "2023-12-17",
"id": "kdq260k",
"parent_id": "18kako4",
"score": 5,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "IDislikeHomonyms",
"body": "Why do you call my brain and body reptilian?",
"date": "2023-12-17",
"id": "kdq3ezm",
"parent_id": "kdq260k",
"score": -4,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "IDislikeHomonyms",
"body": "I'll patiently wait for selective memory-erasure treatments to become available. \n\nCombat veterans need this too. After all, what else causes their 22 suicides a day in America besides bad battlefield memories and flashbacks in their dreams?\n\nIf I could selectively erase all bad memories that I have no interest in keeping, would I become a happier, cheerier man? Or would there be some unintended side-effects that I'd be happy to do without?\n\nIf there are negative effects due to bugs and unforeseen issues, I'll wait longer for them to work out the kinks and re-release a better version of the SMET - Selective Memory Erasure Treatment.\n\nBut is there anything I should be aware of that would be the cons to undergoing this treatment, that cannot simply be updated with a patch/update/debugging of the treatment?\n\nWhy should I not undergo this once the means to make this treatment possible, become available?\n\nSince I assume I can't post links to YouTube from here, just search ***Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind official trailer*** on there to get a better idea of what I'm talking about.",
"date": "2023-12-17",
"id": "18kako4",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: I really think I should get the selective memory-erasure treatment (as depicted in the Jim Carrey film \"Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind\") in order to erase all unwanted bad memories of betrayals, failures and so on, once it becomes available to the public.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18kako4/cmv_i_really_think_i_should_get_the_selective/"
},
{
"author": "No-Produce-334",
"body": ">I'll patiently wait for selective memory-erasure treatments to become available.\n\nYou'll likely expire or get the totally not selective memory-erasing Alzheimer's before this happens. But hey, never say never I guess.\n\n>Combat veterans need this too. After all, what else causes their 22 suicides a day in America besides bad battlefield memories and flashbacks in their dreams?\n\nIt's not like Amnesia cures PTSD, and there are cases of people experiencing PTSD due to being traumatized in infancy by things they have no memory of themselves. I don't think that selectively erasing a memory would cure PTSD unless you also undo all synaptic pathways that formed as a result of the traumatization, not just the ones related specifically to the memory.\n\n>If there are negative effects due to bugs and unforeseen issues\n\nHow much are you considering long term side effects? How long will you wait until you've decided \"there's probably no negative effects?\" 5 years? 10? 20?\n\n>But is there anything I should be aware of that would be the cons to undergoing this treatment, that cannot simply be updated with a patch/update/debugging of the treatment?\n\nWell it's not real. So I don't think anyone can answer that. You could watch the movie again maybe, it does kinda talk about why on a human level such technology is bad.",
"date": "2023-12-17",
"id": "kdq287o",
"parent_id": "18kako4",
"score": 18,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "IDislikeHomonyms",
"body": "I'll patiently wait for selective memory-erasure treatments to become available. \n\nCombat veterans need this too. After all, what else causes their 22 suicides a day in America besides bad battlefield memories and flashbacks in their dreams?\n\nIf I could selectively erase all bad memories that I have no interest in keeping, would I become a happier, cheerier man? Or would there be some unintended side-effects that I'd be happy to do without?\n\nIf there are negative effects due to bugs and unforeseen issues, I'll wait longer for them to work out the kinks and re-release a better version of the SMET - Selective Memory Erasure Treatment.\n\nBut is there anything I should be aware of that would be the cons to undergoing this treatment, that cannot simply be updated with a patch/update/debugging of the treatment?\n\nWhy should I not undergo this once the means to make this treatment possible, become available?\n\nSince I assume I can't post links to YouTube from here, just search ***Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind official trailer*** on there to get a better idea of what I'm talking about.",
"date": "2023-12-17",
"id": "18kako4",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: I really think I should get the selective memory-erasure treatment (as depicted in the Jim Carrey film \"Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind\") in order to erase all unwanted bad memories of betrayals, failures and so on, once it becomes available to the public.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18kako4/cmv_i_really_think_i_should_get_the_selective/"
},
{
"author": "Lazy_Trash_6297",
"body": "we can already have trauma responses and triggers to things we don’t properly remember. The experience gets locked into the body, and certain triggers like smells, sights, or people activate the response even if we don’t remember why. \n\nI know the selective memory treatment is imaginary but I don’t see why it wouldn’t create situations where certain events are still activating the trauma trigger without any understanding. It might help a person not ruminate in bad thoughts but it also might make it more difficult to heal because they don’t understand what their body needs to heal from. \n\nPlus the whole point of SMET is it’s a way to avoid learning how to heal ourselves. I get that there are some scars that are so bad they’d be better off erased, but we also cannot avoid bad memories and have to learn how to deal with them in healthy ways.",
"date": "2023-12-17",
"id": "kdq2acx",
"parent_id": "18kako4",
"score": 12,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "IDislikeHomonyms",
"body": "I'll patiently wait for selective memory-erasure treatments to become available. \n\nCombat veterans need this too. After all, what else causes their 22 suicides a day in America besides bad battlefield memories and flashbacks in their dreams?\n\nIf I could selectively erase all bad memories that I have no interest in keeping, would I become a happier, cheerier man? Or would there be some unintended side-effects that I'd be happy to do without?\n\nIf there are negative effects due to bugs and unforeseen issues, I'll wait longer for them to work out the kinks and re-release a better version of the SMET - Selective Memory Erasure Treatment.\n\nBut is there anything I should be aware of that would be the cons to undergoing this treatment, that cannot simply be updated with a patch/update/debugging of the treatment?\n\nWhy should I not undergo this once the means to make this treatment possible, become available?\n\nSince I assume I can't post links to YouTube from here, just search ***Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind official trailer*** on there to get a better idea of what I'm talking about.",
"date": "2023-12-17",
"id": "18kako4",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: I really think I should get the selective memory-erasure treatment (as depicted in the Jim Carrey film \"Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind\") in order to erase all unwanted bad memories of betrayals, failures and so on, once it becomes available to the public.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18kako4/cmv_i_really_think_i_should_get_the_selective/"
},
{
"author": "obert-wan-kenobert",
"body": "I suppose there are certain experiences like combat or sexual assault that you’d unequivocally want to get rid of. However, by and large, bad memories are what make you grow as a person.\n\nFor example, let’s say you’re dating someone you really love, but they break up with you because you’re not emotionally attentive enough.\n\nThe bad experience of the break-up is what would motivate you to become more emotionally attentive, so that next time you find yourself in a relationship, you won’t repeat the same mistake.\n\nBut if you didn’t remember your bad experiences, you simply continue to make the exact same mistakes over and over, and never learn or grow as a person.",
"date": "2023-12-17",
"id": "kdq2cue",
"parent_id": "18kako4",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "IDislikeHomonyms",
"body": "Then please tell me what the personalities of people who grew up heavily pampered from a top-1% family are like these days? If every need was easily provided due to family being billionaires with corporate empires, and therefore they didn't have any significant hardships while growing up in very wealthy circumstances, what kind of person would they be by adulthood? Am I better off being the person I am now than to be like someone from a life where money was no object?",
"date": "2023-12-17",
"id": "kdq4hxs",
"parent_id": "kdq2cue",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "IDislikeHomonyms",
"body": "I'll patiently wait for selective memory-erasure treatments to become available. \n\nCombat veterans need this too. After all, what else causes their 22 suicides a day in America besides bad battlefield memories and flashbacks in their dreams?\n\nIf I could selectively erase all bad memories that I have no interest in keeping, would I become a happier, cheerier man? Or would there be some unintended side-effects that I'd be happy to do without?\n\nIf there are negative effects due to bugs and unforeseen issues, I'll wait longer for them to work out the kinks and re-release a better version of the SMET - Selective Memory Erasure Treatment.\n\nBut is there anything I should be aware of that would be the cons to undergoing this treatment, that cannot simply be updated with a patch/update/debugging of the treatment?\n\nWhy should I not undergo this once the means to make this treatment possible, become available?\n\nSince I assume I can't post links to YouTube from here, just search ***Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind official trailer*** on there to get a better idea of what I'm talking about.",
"date": "2023-12-17",
"id": "18kako4",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: I really think I should get the selective memory-erasure treatment (as depicted in the Jim Carrey film \"Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind\") in order to erase all unwanted bad memories of betrayals, failures and so on, once it becomes available to the public.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18kako4/cmv_i_really_think_i_should_get_the_selective/"
},
{
"author": "sailorbrendan",
"body": "The thing is that those memories and pains and failures... that's part of who you are. Without those, we have no way of knowing who you would be. Maybe it would be great, maybe you would be a monster, maybe you'd just be a little more naive. That's an unanswerable question. \n\nMost of the treatment for PTSD, which you referenced with soldiers comes down to helping them re-frame the trauma in a way that they can process better. There's a bunch of different tools for doing this, but none of it is about making people forget.",
"date": "2023-12-17",
"id": "kdq2gvz",
"parent_id": "18kako4",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "IDislikeHomonyms",
"body": "I'll patiently wait for selective memory-erasure treatments to become available. \n\nCombat veterans need this too. After all, what else causes their 22 suicides a day in America besides bad battlefield memories and flashbacks in their dreams?\n\nIf I could selectively erase all bad memories that I have no interest in keeping, would I become a happier, cheerier man? Or would there be some unintended side-effects that I'd be happy to do without?\n\nIf there are negative effects due to bugs and unforeseen issues, I'll wait longer for them to work out the kinks and re-release a better version of the SMET - Selective Memory Erasure Treatment.\n\nBut is there anything I should be aware of that would be the cons to undergoing this treatment, that cannot simply be updated with a patch/update/debugging of the treatment?\n\nWhy should I not undergo this once the means to make this treatment possible, become available?\n\nSince I assume I can't post links to YouTube from here, just search ***Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind official trailer*** on there to get a better idea of what I'm talking about.",
"date": "2023-12-17",
"id": "18kako4",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: I really think I should get the selective memory-erasure treatment (as depicted in the Jim Carrey film \"Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind\") in order to erase all unwanted bad memories of betrayals, failures and so on, once it becomes available to the public.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18kako4/cmv_i_really_think_i_should_get_the_selective/"
},
{
"author": "2r1t",
"body": "I love that movie. I find it difficult to see how that movie sold the proposed process as a positive. My take away was that those things we think we would want to erase will only, at best, hinder our ability to grow and move on.",
"date": "2023-12-17",
"id": "kdq5scq",
"parent_id": "18kako4",
"score": 5,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "IDislikeHomonyms",
"body": "That memory erasure treatment could still help suicidal people, right?",
"date": "2023-12-17",
"id": "kdqdg5y",
"parent_id": "kdq5scq",
"score": -2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "IDislikeHomonyms",
"body": "I'll patiently wait for selective memory-erasure treatments to become available. \n\nCombat veterans need this too. After all, what else causes their 22 suicides a day in America besides bad battlefield memories and flashbacks in their dreams?\n\nIf I could selectively erase all bad memories that I have no interest in keeping, would I become a happier, cheerier man? Or would there be some unintended side-effects that I'd be happy to do without?\n\nIf there are negative effects due to bugs and unforeseen issues, I'll wait longer for them to work out the kinks and re-release a better version of the SMET - Selective Memory Erasure Treatment.\n\nBut is there anything I should be aware of that would be the cons to undergoing this treatment, that cannot simply be updated with a patch/update/debugging of the treatment?\n\nWhy should I not undergo this once the means to make this treatment possible, become available?\n\nSince I assume I can't post links to YouTube from here, just search ***Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind official trailer*** on there to get a better idea of what I'm talking about.",
"date": "2023-12-17",
"id": "18kako4",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: I really think I should get the selective memory-erasure treatment (as depicted in the Jim Carrey film \"Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind\") in order to erase all unwanted bad memories of betrayals, failures and so on, once it becomes available to the public.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18kako4/cmv_i_really_think_i_should_get_the_selective/"
},
{
"author": "spiral8888",
"body": "I don't think human mind works like a computer where you can delete a single file and after that there is no trace of it or anything associated with it. Our minds are more complex and even if you were able to delete some details of the memory, the effects of your mind having processed that memory for months, years or decades is probably impossible to erase without erasing a lot more of your personality in the process.\n\nSo, you end up without the memory but also without a lot more of what you are. Basically a self inflicted dementia.",
"date": "2023-12-17",
"id": "kdq5vi8",
"parent_id": "18kako4",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "IDislikeHomonyms",
"body": "I'll patiently wait for selective memory-erasure treatments to become available. \n\nCombat veterans need this too. After all, what else causes their 22 suicides a day in America besides bad battlefield memories and flashbacks in their dreams?\n\nIf I could selectively erase all bad memories that I have no interest in keeping, would I become a happier, cheerier man? Or would there be some unintended side-effects that I'd be happy to do without?\n\nIf there are negative effects due to bugs and unforeseen issues, I'll wait longer for them to work out the kinks and re-release a better version of the SMET - Selective Memory Erasure Treatment.\n\nBut is there anything I should be aware of that would be the cons to undergoing this treatment, that cannot simply be updated with a patch/update/debugging of the treatment?\n\nWhy should I not undergo this once the means to make this treatment possible, become available?\n\nSince I assume I can't post links to YouTube from here, just search ***Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind official trailer*** on there to get a better idea of what I'm talking about.",
"date": "2023-12-17",
"id": "18kako4",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: I really think I should get the selective memory-erasure treatment (as depicted in the Jim Carrey film \"Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind\") in order to erase all unwanted bad memories of betrayals, failures and so on, once it becomes available to the public.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18kako4/cmv_i_really_think_i_should_get_the_selective/"
},
{
"author": "BitchyWitchy68",
"body": "I think that’s why older people are so prone to mental illnesses.. a lifetime of bad memories can be tormenting. I suffer from that feeling sometimes.😩",
"date": "2023-12-17",
"id": "kdq8c7u",
"parent_id": "18kako4",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "IDislikeHomonyms",
"body": "I'll patiently wait for selective memory-erasure treatments to become available. \n\nCombat veterans need this too. After all, what else causes their 22 suicides a day in America besides bad battlefield memories and flashbacks in their dreams?\n\nIf I could selectively erase all bad memories that I have no interest in keeping, would I become a happier, cheerier man? Or would there be some unintended side-effects that I'd be happy to do without?\n\nIf there are negative effects due to bugs and unforeseen issues, I'll wait longer for them to work out the kinks and re-release a better version of the SMET - Selective Memory Erasure Treatment.\n\nBut is there anything I should be aware of that would be the cons to undergoing this treatment, that cannot simply be updated with a patch/update/debugging of the treatment?\n\nWhy should I not undergo this once the means to make this treatment possible, become available?\n\nSince I assume I can't post links to YouTube from here, just search ***Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind official trailer*** on there to get a better idea of what I'm talking about.",
"date": "2023-12-17",
"id": "18kako4",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: I really think I should get the selective memory-erasure treatment (as depicted in the Jim Carrey film \"Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind\") in order to erase all unwanted bad memories of betrayals, failures and so on, once it becomes available to the public.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18kako4/cmv_i_really_think_i_should_get_the_selective/"
},
{
"author": "Brainjacker",
"body": ">Why should I not undergo this once the means to make this treatment possible, become available?\n\nBecause there is absolutely nothing indicating that this type of technology is possible, in development, or going to become available.",
"date": "2023-12-17",
"id": "kdqpr6h",
"parent_id": "18kako4",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "IDislikeHomonyms",
"body": "I'll patiently wait for selective memory-erasure treatments to become available. \n\nCombat veterans need this too. After all, what else causes their 22 suicides a day in America besides bad battlefield memories and flashbacks in their dreams?\n\nIf I could selectively erase all bad memories that I have no interest in keeping, would I become a happier, cheerier man? Or would there be some unintended side-effects that I'd be happy to do without?\n\nIf there are negative effects due to bugs and unforeseen issues, I'll wait longer for them to work out the kinks and re-release a better version of the SMET - Selective Memory Erasure Treatment.\n\nBut is there anything I should be aware of that would be the cons to undergoing this treatment, that cannot simply be updated with a patch/update/debugging of the treatment?\n\nWhy should I not undergo this once the means to make this treatment possible, become available?\n\nSince I assume I can't post links to YouTube from here, just search ***Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind official trailer*** on there to get a better idea of what I'm talking about.",
"date": "2023-12-17",
"id": "18kako4",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: I really think I should get the selective memory-erasure treatment (as depicted in the Jim Carrey film \"Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind\") in order to erase all unwanted bad memories of betrayals, failures and so on, once it becomes available to the public.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18kako4/cmv_i_really_think_i_should_get_the_selective/"
},
{
"author": "Adequate_Images",
"body": "The thing is, memory is too complicated for this to ever work. \n\nThink about your worst memory. Then think about how many times and how many places you’ve thought about it. \n\nHow many people you’ve talked to about it. Shared memories. Family trauma. \n\nTherapy is a much better (and real) option. \n\nIf you want another movie to watch to show how Sadness and Joy go together watch Inside Out. \n\nYour memories make you who you are.",
"date": "2023-12-17",
"id": "kdqvs7x",
"parent_id": "18kako4",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "IDislikeHomonyms",
"body": "I'll patiently wait for selective memory-erasure treatments to become available. \n\nCombat veterans need this too. After all, what else causes their 22 suicides a day in America besides bad battlefield memories and flashbacks in their dreams?\n\nIf I could selectively erase all bad memories that I have no interest in keeping, would I become a happier, cheerier man? Or would there be some unintended side-effects that I'd be happy to do without?\n\nIf there are negative effects due to bugs and unforeseen issues, I'll wait longer for them to work out the kinks and re-release a better version of the SMET - Selective Memory Erasure Treatment.\n\nBut is there anything I should be aware of that would be the cons to undergoing this treatment, that cannot simply be updated with a patch/update/debugging of the treatment?\n\nWhy should I not undergo this once the means to make this treatment possible, become available?\n\nSince I assume I can't post links to YouTube from here, just search ***Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind official trailer*** on there to get a better idea of what I'm talking about.",
"date": "2023-12-17",
"id": "18kako4",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: I really think I should get the selective memory-erasure treatment (as depicted in the Jim Carrey film \"Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind\") in order to erase all unwanted bad memories of betrayals, failures and so on, once it becomes available to the public.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18kako4/cmv_i_really_think_i_should_get_the_selective/"
},
{
"author": "Mindless_Wrap1758",
"body": "There has been a lot of promising research with recreational drugs including MDMA and magic mushrooms. People with PTSD are healing from therapy and psilocybin usage. That would be better than erasure, presumably, because if you just forgot you'd still have lots of problems, just without the memories.",
"date": "2023-12-17",
"id": "kdr29ej",
"parent_id": "18kako4",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "IDislikeHomonyms",
"body": "I'll patiently wait for selective memory-erasure treatments to become available. \n\nCombat veterans need this too. After all, what else causes their 22 suicides a day in America besides bad battlefield memories and flashbacks in their dreams?\n\nIf I could selectively erase all bad memories that I have no interest in keeping, would I become a happier, cheerier man? Or would there be some unintended side-effects that I'd be happy to do without?\n\nIf there are negative effects due to bugs and unforeseen issues, I'll wait longer for them to work out the kinks and re-release a better version of the SMET - Selective Memory Erasure Treatment.\n\nBut is there anything I should be aware of that would be the cons to undergoing this treatment, that cannot simply be updated with a patch/update/debugging of the treatment?\n\nWhy should I not undergo this once the means to make this treatment possible, become available?\n\nSince I assume I can't post links to YouTube from here, just search ***Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind official trailer*** on there to get a better idea of what I'm talking about.",
"date": "2023-12-17",
"id": "18kako4",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: I really think I should get the selective memory-erasure treatment (as depicted in the Jim Carrey film \"Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind\") in order to erase all unwanted bad memories of betrayals, failures and so on, once it becomes available to the public.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18kako4/cmv_i_really_think_i_should_get_the_selective/"
},
{
"author": "i-drink-isopropyl-91",
"body": "I have memory loss loosing your memories even if they are bad sucks I don’t remember much past a year or so ago.",
"date": "2023-12-17",
"id": "kdrijdn",
"parent_id": "18kako4",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "IDislikeHomonyms",
"body": "I'll patiently wait for selective memory-erasure treatments to become available. \n\nCombat veterans need this too. After all, what else causes their 22 suicides a day in America besides bad battlefield memories and flashbacks in their dreams?\n\nIf I could selectively erase all bad memories that I have no interest in keeping, would I become a happier, cheerier man? Or would there be some unintended side-effects that I'd be happy to do without?\n\nIf there are negative effects due to bugs and unforeseen issues, I'll wait longer for them to work out the kinks and re-release a better version of the SMET - Selective Memory Erasure Treatment.\n\nBut is there anything I should be aware of that would be the cons to undergoing this treatment, that cannot simply be updated with a patch/update/debugging of the treatment?\n\nWhy should I not undergo this once the means to make this treatment possible, become available?\n\nSince I assume I can't post links to YouTube from here, just search ***Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind official trailer*** on there to get a better idea of what I'm talking about.",
"date": "2023-12-17",
"id": "18kako4",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: I really think I should get the selective memory-erasure treatment (as depicted in the Jim Carrey film \"Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind\") in order to erase all unwanted bad memories of betrayals, failures and so on, once it becomes available to the public.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18kako4/cmv_i_really_think_i_should_get_the_selective/"
},
{
"author": "SeymoreButz38",
"body": "Isn't the point of that movie that they make the same mistakes over and over because they don't remember?",
"date": "2023-12-17",
"id": "kdsf1t5",
"parent_id": "18kako4",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "IDislikeHomonyms",
"body": "Oh, that's what it was? Haven't seen it since 2014.",
"date": "2023-12-17",
"id": "kdsfgww",
"parent_id": "kdsf1t5",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "IDislikeHomonyms",
"body": "I'll patiently wait for selective memory-erasure treatments to become available. \n\nCombat veterans need this too. After all, what else causes their 22 suicides a day in America besides bad battlefield memories and flashbacks in their dreams?\n\nIf I could selectively erase all bad memories that I have no interest in keeping, would I become a happier, cheerier man? Or would there be some unintended side-effects that I'd be happy to do without?\n\nIf there are negative effects due to bugs and unforeseen issues, I'll wait longer for them to work out the kinks and re-release a better version of the SMET - Selective Memory Erasure Treatment.\n\nBut is there anything I should be aware of that would be the cons to undergoing this treatment, that cannot simply be updated with a patch/update/debugging of the treatment?\n\nWhy should I not undergo this once the means to make this treatment possible, become available?\n\nSince I assume I can't post links to YouTube from here, just search ***Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind official trailer*** on there to get a better idea of what I'm talking about.",
"date": "2023-12-17",
"id": "18kako4",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: I really think I should get the selective memory-erasure treatment (as depicted in the Jim Carrey film \"Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind\") in order to erase all unwanted bad memories of betrayals, failures and so on, once it becomes available to the public.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18kako4/cmv_i_really_think_i_should_get_the_selective/"
},
{
"author": "CaptainONaps",
"body": "I often think about the remote in adam sandlers movie, Click. He just didn’t use the remote correctly. He should have been utilizing pause, rewind and mute more. I’m confident I could avoid the pitfalls and make it work.",
"date": "2023-12-17",
"id": "kdtlcnp",
"parent_id": "18kako4",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
]
]
| challenge |
[
{
"author": "RedditExplorer89",
"body": "I hear this in discourse when women wear sexy clothing in movies or video games: that it objectifies women (and I assume the speaker thinks this is a bad thing). This is also usually accompanied with complaints that women are being seen as \"just\" sex objects, and that their other human qualities are being diminished. One women I've met said, \"I want to be seen as more than a bag of warm meat.\"\n\nOn a base level, I do think its bad if someone feels bad, and its clear women feel bad about objectification. In that sense, I'd agree objectification is bad. However, I think these perceptions of their image are distortions, and I don't understand *why* they feel so bad about it. I'll explain the reasoning why I have this view:\n\n1.) Perceptions of objectification are distortions of reality. No guy I've ever met sees women as \"walking vaginas\" or \"bags of warm meat.\" Yeah, sex might be the most attractive thing about a women for some guys, but even the guys trying to constantly get laid understand that they are dealing with a human being who has a brain and feelings. They court women, trying to appeal with intelligent conversation or being sensitive to her feelings (guys that don't do this quickly learn being a douche doesn't get you dates). If they really just wanted warm bags of meat they could much more easily buy meat from the butcher, heat it up in the oven, and play around with that. Or buy a sex doll. But men consistently choose to go after living, breathing women who have brains and opinions.\n\nIn modern media, it may be true that a women's body parts might be the most attractive thing *initially for a guy*, but its really more of an attention grabber. Once the movie/game starts, the personality of woman comes through. For example: Lara Croft in Tomb Raider (a character model who is heavily sexualized) had her personality and story changed part way through, and fans of the franchise were upset over it.\n\n2.) I don't get why women feel bad about objectification. If men were constantly showed as sex objects I don't think it would bother me. Heck, there are even jokes that \"men are dumb,\" or \"men have 0 emotional IQ\" and I just laugh at it. I feel like if I was seen as just a hunk of muscles that would be kinda awesome if anything. I also get the impression a lot of men would be okay with it too, based on the men I've met in my life. So, I don't understand why it seems only women have an issue with this.\n\n**What would change my view**\n\nI'd like to better understand why women feel bad about objectification, and learn if there is truth to their perceptions of their image regarding it.\n\n* Data/studies showing that men only see women as walking bags of meat.\n\n* Tell me why it doesn't feel good to be seen as a sexy creature. Is this just because men have a higher sex drive?\n\n* Maybe something else could change my view, such as pointing out a flaw in my reasoning. This was just what I could think of for this post.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* Men complain about being expected to be the breadwinner, which could point to just either human not understanding the feeling of being a situation they haven't experienced (ie: haven't experienced objectification so I don't know why it would feel bad)\n\n* If people claim your achievements are due to your looks that would be upsetting.\n\n* Historically, women had to put men as the face of their achievement, and to do that had to sleep with the man. This objectification is bad, because they don't get acknowledgement for their achievement and might sleep with someone they otherwise would not want to.\n\n* \"Being compared to things you buy and own as a woman feels shitty because this is how some men still see us -- as property.\" - and objectification can lead to being compared to things you buy.\n\n* Human qualities being diminished could be dangerous and lead to doing inhumane things to those people.\n\n* Honor killings, where women are killed due to bringing shame on the family for being to sexual.\n\n* There are men who treat women poorly with objectification and can be harmful, especially for younger women who might not know what a good relationship looks like.\n\n* [Study](https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/documents/s73942/Appendix%206%20-%20Journal%20Article.pdf) shows that seeing women as sexual objects leads to more sexual assault of women.",
"date": "2023-12-25",
"id": "18qs46r",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Objectification of women isn't as bad as they make it out to be",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18qs46r/cmv_objectification_of_women_isnt_as_bad_as_they/"
},
{
"author": "koolaid-girl-40",
"body": "It's the double standard that's the issue. If media depicted men the exact same way they depicted women, then it wouldn't be an issue.\n\nIn societies shaped by patriarchy, a man's value is tied to his degree of power and resource status, while a woman's value is tied to her body. Whether it be how sexually appealing her body is to men in general (objectification), how much she reserves her body for specific men (purity culture), or her ability to bear and raise children (motherhood obligation), her value is in some way tied to her body...something that she didn't decide to be born into. It can be very disheartening to feel like no matter how hard you work to get good at a particular skill or contribute to society in other ways, the world seems to care more about your body or what you do with your body.\n\nBoth men and women are fighting against the reduction of their value to things that don't bring them true fulfillment, and for both that often means pushing back against double standards. And for women, the double standard involves an intense focus on their bodies that it often unwanted. So if a video game or movie is gonna insist on exposing a woman's body to titillate viewers, then expose men's bodies to the same extent. Or don't make sexual appeal the focus of either gender's characters or costume design. it's not that hard and does a lot to reassure women that their bodies aren't the most interesting thing about them.",
"date": "2023-12-25",
"id": "kewy50f",
"parent_id": "18qs46r",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "RedditExplorer89",
"body": "> It can be very disheartening to feel like no matter how hard you work to get good at a particular skill or contribute to society in other ways, the world seems to care more about your body or what you do with your body\n\nIts funny, because I almost feel the opposite where only being valued on what you can provide is not as good as being valued for something inherent like your body. But as another commenter pointed out, maybe if my shoes were switched where the other was harder to be valued for, that would bug me more. Also, you kind of touch on that\n\n> Both men and women are fighting against the reduction of their value to things that don't bring them true fulfillment, and for both that often means pushing back against double standards.\n\nSo, !delta\n\n> If media depicted men the exact same way they depicted women, then it wouldn't be an issue.\n\nIf thats all that is needed, I wish media just depicted men the same way haha.",
"date": "2023-12-25",
"id": "kex1ryh",
"parent_id": "kewy50f",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "DeltaBot",
"body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/koolaid-girl-40 ([23∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/koolaid-girl-40)).\n\n^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
"date": "2023-12-25",
"id": "kex1vdx",
"parent_id": "kex1ryh",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
]
| [
[
{
"author": "RedditExplorer89",
"body": "I hear this in discourse when women wear sexy clothing in movies or video games: that it objectifies women (and I assume the speaker thinks this is a bad thing). This is also usually accompanied with complaints that women are being seen as \"just\" sex objects, and that their other human qualities are being diminished. One women I've met said, \"I want to be seen as more than a bag of warm meat.\"\n\nOn a base level, I do think its bad if someone feels bad, and its clear women feel bad about objectification. In that sense, I'd agree objectification is bad. However, I think these perceptions of their image are distortions, and I don't understand *why* they feel so bad about it. I'll explain the reasoning why I have this view:\n\n1.) Perceptions of objectification are distortions of reality. No guy I've ever met sees women as \"walking vaginas\" or \"bags of warm meat.\" Yeah, sex might be the most attractive thing about a women for some guys, but even the guys trying to constantly get laid understand that they are dealing with a human being who has a brain and feelings. They court women, trying to appeal with intelligent conversation or being sensitive to her feelings (guys that don't do this quickly learn being a douche doesn't get you dates). If they really just wanted warm bags of meat they could much more easily buy meat from the butcher, heat it up in the oven, and play around with that. Or buy a sex doll. But men consistently choose to go after living, breathing women who have brains and opinions.\n\nIn modern media, it may be true that a women's body parts might be the most attractive thing *initially for a guy*, but its really more of an attention grabber. Once the movie/game starts, the personality of woman comes through. For example: Lara Croft in Tomb Raider (a character model who is heavily sexualized) had her personality and story changed part way through, and fans of the franchise were upset over it.\n\n2.) I don't get why women feel bad about objectification. If men were constantly showed as sex objects I don't think it would bother me. Heck, there are even jokes that \"men are dumb,\" or \"men have 0 emotional IQ\" and I just laugh at it. I feel like if I was seen as just a hunk of muscles that would be kinda awesome if anything. I also get the impression a lot of men would be okay with it too, based on the men I've met in my life. So, I don't understand why it seems only women have an issue with this.\n\n**What would change my view**\n\nI'd like to better understand why women feel bad about objectification, and learn if there is truth to their perceptions of their image regarding it.\n\n* Data/studies showing that men only see women as walking bags of meat.\n\n* Tell me why it doesn't feel good to be seen as a sexy creature. Is this just because men have a higher sex drive?\n\n* Maybe something else could change my view, such as pointing out a flaw in my reasoning. This was just what I could think of for this post.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* Men complain about being expected to be the breadwinner, which could point to just either human not understanding the feeling of being a situation they haven't experienced (ie: haven't experienced objectification so I don't know why it would feel bad)\n\n* If people claim your achievements are due to your looks that would be upsetting.\n\n* Historically, women had to put men as the face of their achievement, and to do that had to sleep with the man. This objectification is bad, because they don't get acknowledgement for their achievement and might sleep with someone they otherwise would not want to.\n\n* \"Being compared to things you buy and own as a woman feels shitty because this is how some men still see us -- as property.\" - and objectification can lead to being compared to things you buy.\n\n* Human qualities being diminished could be dangerous and lead to doing inhumane things to those people.\n\n* Honor killings, where women are killed due to bringing shame on the family for being to sexual.\n\n* There are men who treat women poorly with objectification and can be harmful, especially for younger women who might not know what a good relationship looks like.\n\n* [Study](https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/documents/s73942/Appendix%206%20-%20Journal%20Article.pdf) shows that seeing women as sexual objects leads to more sexual assault of women.",
"date": "2023-12-25",
"id": "18qs46r",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Objectification of women isn't as bad as they make it out to be",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18qs46r/cmv_objectification_of_women_isnt_as_bad_as_they/"
},
{
"author": "AnAlpacaIsJudgingYou",
"body": "Think about if the only thing society values about you was your sex appeal. Bot your personality, your skill, your achievements.",
"date": "2023-12-25",
"id": "kewtfma",
"parent_id": "18qs46r",
"score": 14,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "RedditExplorer89",
"body": "I guess I have a hard time imagining that because I don't see how society would not value my skill or achievements. If I did something great how would society not value that?",
"date": "2023-12-25",
"id": "kewvk8d",
"parent_id": "kewtfma",
"score": -6,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "RedditExplorer89",
"body": "I hear this in discourse when women wear sexy clothing in movies or video games: that it objectifies women (and I assume the speaker thinks this is a bad thing). This is also usually accompanied with complaints that women are being seen as \"just\" sex objects, and that their other human qualities are being diminished. One women I've met said, \"I want to be seen as more than a bag of warm meat.\"\n\nOn a base level, I do think its bad if someone feels bad, and its clear women feel bad about objectification. In that sense, I'd agree objectification is bad. However, I think these perceptions of their image are distortions, and I don't understand *why* they feel so bad about it. I'll explain the reasoning why I have this view:\n\n1.) Perceptions of objectification are distortions of reality. No guy I've ever met sees women as \"walking vaginas\" or \"bags of warm meat.\" Yeah, sex might be the most attractive thing about a women for some guys, but even the guys trying to constantly get laid understand that they are dealing with a human being who has a brain and feelings. They court women, trying to appeal with intelligent conversation or being sensitive to her feelings (guys that don't do this quickly learn being a douche doesn't get you dates). If they really just wanted warm bags of meat they could much more easily buy meat from the butcher, heat it up in the oven, and play around with that. Or buy a sex doll. But men consistently choose to go after living, breathing women who have brains and opinions.\n\nIn modern media, it may be true that a women's body parts might be the most attractive thing *initially for a guy*, but its really more of an attention grabber. Once the movie/game starts, the personality of woman comes through. For example: Lara Croft in Tomb Raider (a character model who is heavily sexualized) had her personality and story changed part way through, and fans of the franchise were upset over it.\n\n2.) I don't get why women feel bad about objectification. If men were constantly showed as sex objects I don't think it would bother me. Heck, there are even jokes that \"men are dumb,\" or \"men have 0 emotional IQ\" and I just laugh at it. I feel like if I was seen as just a hunk of muscles that would be kinda awesome if anything. I also get the impression a lot of men would be okay with it too, based on the men I've met in my life. So, I don't understand why it seems only women have an issue with this.\n\n**What would change my view**\n\nI'd like to better understand why women feel bad about objectification, and learn if there is truth to their perceptions of their image regarding it.\n\n* Data/studies showing that men only see women as walking bags of meat.\n\n* Tell me why it doesn't feel good to be seen as a sexy creature. Is this just because men have a higher sex drive?\n\n* Maybe something else could change my view, such as pointing out a flaw in my reasoning. This was just what I could think of for this post.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* Men complain about being expected to be the breadwinner, which could point to just either human not understanding the feeling of being a situation they haven't experienced (ie: haven't experienced objectification so I don't know why it would feel bad)\n\n* If people claim your achievements are due to your looks that would be upsetting.\n\n* Historically, women had to put men as the face of their achievement, and to do that had to sleep with the man. This objectification is bad, because they don't get acknowledgement for their achievement and might sleep with someone they otherwise would not want to.\n\n* \"Being compared to things you buy and own as a woman feels shitty because this is how some men still see us -- as property.\" - and objectification can lead to being compared to things you buy.\n\n* Human qualities being diminished could be dangerous and lead to doing inhumane things to those people.\n\n* Honor killings, where women are killed due to bringing shame on the family for being to sexual.\n\n* There are men who treat women poorly with objectification and can be harmful, especially for younger women who might not know what a good relationship looks like.\n\n* [Study](https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/documents/s73942/Appendix%206%20-%20Journal%20Article.pdf) shows that seeing women as sexual objects leads to more sexual assault of women.",
"date": "2023-12-25",
"id": "18qs46r",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Objectification of women isn't as bad as they make it out to be",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18qs46r/cmv_objectification_of_women_isnt_as_bad_as_they/"
},
{
"author": "Kazthespooky",
"body": "> I don't get why women feel bad about objectification. If men were constantly showed as sex objects I don't think it would bother me.\n\nDo you believe you would be upset if instead of your next pay raise, you were told you are pretty? Or if you were praised for your hard work with the comment, \"thank god OP was here with their pretty mouth\". Or if you were excluded from things because you would distract others. Or if we told your lifes story and all it said was, \"women enjoyed your pretty mouth\"\n\nYou aren't a human with thoughts, feelings or preferences when you are objectified. You are nothing except what others want to do with you.",
"date": "2023-12-25",
"id": "kewu9h4",
"parent_id": "18qs46r",
"score": 13,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Dramatic_Reality_531",
"body": "How does wearing makeup, high heels, and “sexy” clothes fit into wanting to not be objectified? If women didn’t want to be objectified, shouldn’t they, as a whole, avoid these things that cause objectification?\n\nOr is it a “survival of the fittest” situation where good ideals don’t matter and only who actually has the babies?",
"date": "2023-12-25",
"id": "kewuwyc",
"parent_id": "kewu9h4",
"score": -11,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "RedditExplorer89",
"body": "I hear this in discourse when women wear sexy clothing in movies or video games: that it objectifies women (and I assume the speaker thinks this is a bad thing). This is also usually accompanied with complaints that women are being seen as \"just\" sex objects, and that their other human qualities are being diminished. One women I've met said, \"I want to be seen as more than a bag of warm meat.\"\n\nOn a base level, I do think its bad if someone feels bad, and its clear women feel bad about objectification. In that sense, I'd agree objectification is bad. However, I think these perceptions of their image are distortions, and I don't understand *why* they feel so bad about it. I'll explain the reasoning why I have this view:\n\n1.) Perceptions of objectification are distortions of reality. No guy I've ever met sees women as \"walking vaginas\" or \"bags of warm meat.\" Yeah, sex might be the most attractive thing about a women for some guys, but even the guys trying to constantly get laid understand that they are dealing with a human being who has a brain and feelings. They court women, trying to appeal with intelligent conversation or being sensitive to her feelings (guys that don't do this quickly learn being a douche doesn't get you dates). If they really just wanted warm bags of meat they could much more easily buy meat from the butcher, heat it up in the oven, and play around with that. Or buy a sex doll. But men consistently choose to go after living, breathing women who have brains and opinions.\n\nIn modern media, it may be true that a women's body parts might be the most attractive thing *initially for a guy*, but its really more of an attention grabber. Once the movie/game starts, the personality of woman comes through. For example: Lara Croft in Tomb Raider (a character model who is heavily sexualized) had her personality and story changed part way through, and fans of the franchise were upset over it.\n\n2.) I don't get why women feel bad about objectification. If men were constantly showed as sex objects I don't think it would bother me. Heck, there are even jokes that \"men are dumb,\" or \"men have 0 emotional IQ\" and I just laugh at it. I feel like if I was seen as just a hunk of muscles that would be kinda awesome if anything. I also get the impression a lot of men would be okay with it too, based on the men I've met in my life. So, I don't understand why it seems only women have an issue with this.\n\n**What would change my view**\n\nI'd like to better understand why women feel bad about objectification, and learn if there is truth to their perceptions of their image regarding it.\n\n* Data/studies showing that men only see women as walking bags of meat.\n\n* Tell me why it doesn't feel good to be seen as a sexy creature. Is this just because men have a higher sex drive?\n\n* Maybe something else could change my view, such as pointing out a flaw in my reasoning. This was just what I could think of for this post.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* Men complain about being expected to be the breadwinner, which could point to just either human not understanding the feeling of being a situation they haven't experienced (ie: haven't experienced objectification so I don't know why it would feel bad)\n\n* If people claim your achievements are due to your looks that would be upsetting.\n\n* Historically, women had to put men as the face of their achievement, and to do that had to sleep with the man. This objectification is bad, because they don't get acknowledgement for their achievement and might sleep with someone they otherwise would not want to.\n\n* \"Being compared to things you buy and own as a woman feels shitty because this is how some men still see us -- as property.\" - and objectification can lead to being compared to things you buy.\n\n* Human qualities being diminished could be dangerous and lead to doing inhumane things to those people.\n\n* Honor killings, where women are killed due to bringing shame on the family for being to sexual.\n\n* There are men who treat women poorly with objectification and can be harmful, especially for younger women who might not know what a good relationship looks like.\n\n* [Study](https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/documents/s73942/Appendix%206%20-%20Journal%20Article.pdf) shows that seeing women as sexual objects leads to more sexual assault of women.",
"date": "2023-12-25",
"id": "18qs46r",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Objectification of women isn't as bad as they make it out to be",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18qs46r/cmv_objectification_of_women_isnt_as_bad_as_they/"
},
{
"author": "kikistiel",
"body": ">Data/studies showing that men only see women as walking bags of meat.\n\nIt isn't about how the men feel. It's about how the women feel. They feel like men don't respect them. No amount of \"data\" about how men feel about women make how it makes women feel any less valid. If they say they don't like it, that doesn't need men's input as to why.\n\n>Tell me why it doesn't feel good to be seen as a sexy creature. Is this just because men have a higher sex drive?\n\nBecause we aren't \"creatures\" dude. That's literally the whole point. Just yesterday on this very subreddit I saw someone say they don't want to sleep with women that aren't virgins because \"you would rather have a new car than a used one, right?\" That is exactly what objectification we are talking about. You don't get \"new\" and \"used\" women like from Amazon. As you said, women are people with brains. No one likes to have their entire complex lives reduced to a car sale.\n\n>Maybe something else could change my view, such as pointing out a flaw in my reasoning. This was just what I could think of for this post.\n\nWomen don't like it. If someone does something to someone else and they say hey I don't like that, it makes me feel like shit, please stop -- just stop doing it. I explained above why it hurts and why it makes me feel bad. A reasonable adult would say \"Oh, I see -- I won't do that anymore then.\" Instead of argue about why they should be allowed to do it anyways. Just don't do it.",
"date": "2023-12-25",
"id": "kewub75",
"parent_id": "18qs46r",
"score": 51,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "RedditExplorer89",
"body": "> If someone does something to someone else and they say hey I don't like that, it makes me feel like shit, please stop -- just stop doing it\n\nI agree as a first measure to the issue the easiest thing to do is for men to stop doing the thing that makes women not feel good. But for the long term, wouldn't it make more sense for women to try and see that things aren't as bad as they think? Like, if my sneezing makes you feel like you're being hit, the first thing I would do is stop sneezing. But, I would try to show you that I'm not hitting you.\n\n> Because we aren't \"creatures\" dude. \n\nWe are all creatures, aren't we? Maybe I have a different idea of what a creature is, because I think a creature is a lot more than a car.\n\n> they don't want to sleep with women that aren't virgins because \"you would rather have a new car than a used one, right?\"\n\nHmmm being compared to car is odd, I can almost see how that is hurtful. But, it doesn't seem that bad to me. Could you explain more on this?",
"date": "2023-12-25",
"id": "kewxug1",
"parent_id": "kewub75",
"score": -18,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "RedditExplorer89",
"body": "I hear this in discourse when women wear sexy clothing in movies or video games: that it objectifies women (and I assume the speaker thinks this is a bad thing). This is also usually accompanied with complaints that women are being seen as \"just\" sex objects, and that their other human qualities are being diminished. One women I've met said, \"I want to be seen as more than a bag of warm meat.\"\n\nOn a base level, I do think its bad if someone feels bad, and its clear women feel bad about objectification. In that sense, I'd agree objectification is bad. However, I think these perceptions of their image are distortions, and I don't understand *why* they feel so bad about it. I'll explain the reasoning why I have this view:\n\n1.) Perceptions of objectification are distortions of reality. No guy I've ever met sees women as \"walking vaginas\" or \"bags of warm meat.\" Yeah, sex might be the most attractive thing about a women for some guys, but even the guys trying to constantly get laid understand that they are dealing with a human being who has a brain and feelings. They court women, trying to appeal with intelligent conversation or being sensitive to her feelings (guys that don't do this quickly learn being a douche doesn't get you dates). If they really just wanted warm bags of meat they could much more easily buy meat from the butcher, heat it up in the oven, and play around with that. Or buy a sex doll. But men consistently choose to go after living, breathing women who have brains and opinions.\n\nIn modern media, it may be true that a women's body parts might be the most attractive thing *initially for a guy*, but its really more of an attention grabber. Once the movie/game starts, the personality of woman comes through. For example: Lara Croft in Tomb Raider (a character model who is heavily sexualized) had her personality and story changed part way through, and fans of the franchise were upset over it.\n\n2.) I don't get why women feel bad about objectification. If men were constantly showed as sex objects I don't think it would bother me. Heck, there are even jokes that \"men are dumb,\" or \"men have 0 emotional IQ\" and I just laugh at it. I feel like if I was seen as just a hunk of muscles that would be kinda awesome if anything. I also get the impression a lot of men would be okay with it too, based on the men I've met in my life. So, I don't understand why it seems only women have an issue with this.\n\n**What would change my view**\n\nI'd like to better understand why women feel bad about objectification, and learn if there is truth to their perceptions of their image regarding it.\n\n* Data/studies showing that men only see women as walking bags of meat.\n\n* Tell me why it doesn't feel good to be seen as a sexy creature. Is this just because men have a higher sex drive?\n\n* Maybe something else could change my view, such as pointing out a flaw in my reasoning. This was just what I could think of for this post.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* Men complain about being expected to be the breadwinner, which could point to just either human not understanding the feeling of being a situation they haven't experienced (ie: haven't experienced objectification so I don't know why it would feel bad)\n\n* If people claim your achievements are due to your looks that would be upsetting.\n\n* Historically, women had to put men as the face of their achievement, and to do that had to sleep with the man. This objectification is bad, because they don't get acknowledgement for their achievement and might sleep with someone they otherwise would not want to.\n\n* \"Being compared to things you buy and own as a woman feels shitty because this is how some men still see us -- as property.\" - and objectification can lead to being compared to things you buy.\n\n* Human qualities being diminished could be dangerous and lead to doing inhumane things to those people.\n\n* Honor killings, where women are killed due to bringing shame on the family for being to sexual.\n\n* There are men who treat women poorly with objectification and can be harmful, especially for younger women who might not know what a good relationship looks like.\n\n* [Study](https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/documents/s73942/Appendix%206%20-%20Journal%20Article.pdf) shows that seeing women as sexual objects leads to more sexual assault of women.",
"date": "2023-12-25",
"id": "18qs46r",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Objectification of women isn't as bad as they make it out to be",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18qs46r/cmv_objectification_of_women_isnt_as_bad_as_they/"
},
{
"author": "Hellioning",
"body": "I assure you, not every man 'courts women'. Not every man is 'sensitive to her feelings'. A great many men do not do these things.",
"date": "2023-12-25",
"id": "kewv0qb",
"parent_id": "18qs46r",
"score": 23,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "RedditExplorer89",
"body": "Sure, but those men aren't going to be successful with women, are they?\n\nOr are you saying more men are failing at this due to objectification?",
"date": "2023-12-25",
"id": "kewy0bu",
"parent_id": "kewv0qb",
"score": -2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "RedditExplorer89",
"body": "I hear this in discourse when women wear sexy clothing in movies or video games: that it objectifies women (and I assume the speaker thinks this is a bad thing). This is also usually accompanied with complaints that women are being seen as \"just\" sex objects, and that their other human qualities are being diminished. One women I've met said, \"I want to be seen as more than a bag of warm meat.\"\n\nOn a base level, I do think its bad if someone feels bad, and its clear women feel bad about objectification. In that sense, I'd agree objectification is bad. However, I think these perceptions of their image are distortions, and I don't understand *why* they feel so bad about it. I'll explain the reasoning why I have this view:\n\n1.) Perceptions of objectification are distortions of reality. No guy I've ever met sees women as \"walking vaginas\" or \"bags of warm meat.\" Yeah, sex might be the most attractive thing about a women for some guys, but even the guys trying to constantly get laid understand that they are dealing with a human being who has a brain and feelings. They court women, trying to appeal with intelligent conversation or being sensitive to her feelings (guys that don't do this quickly learn being a douche doesn't get you dates). If they really just wanted warm bags of meat they could much more easily buy meat from the butcher, heat it up in the oven, and play around with that. Or buy a sex doll. But men consistently choose to go after living, breathing women who have brains and opinions.\n\nIn modern media, it may be true that a women's body parts might be the most attractive thing *initially for a guy*, but its really more of an attention grabber. Once the movie/game starts, the personality of woman comes through. For example: Lara Croft in Tomb Raider (a character model who is heavily sexualized) had her personality and story changed part way through, and fans of the franchise were upset over it.\n\n2.) I don't get why women feel bad about objectification. If men were constantly showed as sex objects I don't think it would bother me. Heck, there are even jokes that \"men are dumb,\" or \"men have 0 emotional IQ\" and I just laugh at it. I feel like if I was seen as just a hunk of muscles that would be kinda awesome if anything. I also get the impression a lot of men would be okay with it too, based on the men I've met in my life. So, I don't understand why it seems only women have an issue with this.\n\n**What would change my view**\n\nI'd like to better understand why women feel bad about objectification, and learn if there is truth to their perceptions of their image regarding it.\n\n* Data/studies showing that men only see women as walking bags of meat.\n\n* Tell me why it doesn't feel good to be seen as a sexy creature. Is this just because men have a higher sex drive?\n\n* Maybe something else could change my view, such as pointing out a flaw in my reasoning. This was just what I could think of for this post.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* Men complain about being expected to be the breadwinner, which could point to just either human not understanding the feeling of being a situation they haven't experienced (ie: haven't experienced objectification so I don't know why it would feel bad)\n\n* If people claim your achievements are due to your looks that would be upsetting.\n\n* Historically, women had to put men as the face of their achievement, and to do that had to sleep with the man. This objectification is bad, because they don't get acknowledgement for their achievement and might sleep with someone they otherwise would not want to.\n\n* \"Being compared to things you buy and own as a woman feels shitty because this is how some men still see us -- as property.\" - and objectification can lead to being compared to things you buy.\n\n* Human qualities being diminished could be dangerous and lead to doing inhumane things to those people.\n\n* Honor killings, where women are killed due to bringing shame on the family for being to sexual.\n\n* There are men who treat women poorly with objectification and can be harmful, especially for younger women who might not know what a good relationship looks like.\n\n* [Study](https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/documents/s73942/Appendix%206%20-%20Journal%20Article.pdf) shows that seeing women as sexual objects leads to more sexual assault of women.",
"date": "2023-12-25",
"id": "18qs46r",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Objectification of women isn't as bad as they make it out to be",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18qs46r/cmv_objectification_of_women_isnt_as_bad_as_they/"
},
{
"author": "whatwhowherehow",
"body": "A lot of men see women as a lesser class of humans. This isn’t a speculation, you can scrutinize anything from art and literature to legislation and policy and it would lead you to that conclusion. It’s also important to interrogate your viewpoint by expanding how women are treated globally not only how you perceive women to be treated in your immediate vicinity. You have entire countries where women are second class (Afghanistan and Iran). Objectification may seem harmless in how you’ve described it but it’s a symptom of a greater problem. When you divorce someone from their full humanity and place so much value on their appearance you rob them of dignity. When so much emphasis is places on a woman’s appearance, it means that she has less value if she ages, if she is disabled, if she isn’t beautiful. Objectification in its essence is the opposite of humanization. Women are owed the dignity of their humanity just as equally as men do.",
"date": "2023-12-25",
"id": "kewvx3i",
"parent_id": "18qs46r",
"score": 20,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "RedditExplorer89",
"body": "> A lot of men see women as a lesser class of humans\n\nTrue. Objectification as a symptom of a greater problem, that could also be true. But then, is objectification really the problem? Or is the bigger issue of women not being seen as equals?",
"date": "2023-12-25",
"id": "kex0och",
"parent_id": "kewvx3i",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "RedditExplorer89",
"body": "I hear this in discourse when women wear sexy clothing in movies or video games: that it objectifies women (and I assume the speaker thinks this is a bad thing). This is also usually accompanied with complaints that women are being seen as \"just\" sex objects, and that their other human qualities are being diminished. One women I've met said, \"I want to be seen as more than a bag of warm meat.\"\n\nOn a base level, I do think its bad if someone feels bad, and its clear women feel bad about objectification. In that sense, I'd agree objectification is bad. However, I think these perceptions of their image are distortions, and I don't understand *why* they feel so bad about it. I'll explain the reasoning why I have this view:\n\n1.) Perceptions of objectification are distortions of reality. No guy I've ever met sees women as \"walking vaginas\" or \"bags of warm meat.\" Yeah, sex might be the most attractive thing about a women for some guys, but even the guys trying to constantly get laid understand that they are dealing with a human being who has a brain and feelings. They court women, trying to appeal with intelligent conversation or being sensitive to her feelings (guys that don't do this quickly learn being a douche doesn't get you dates). If they really just wanted warm bags of meat they could much more easily buy meat from the butcher, heat it up in the oven, and play around with that. Or buy a sex doll. But men consistently choose to go after living, breathing women who have brains and opinions.\n\nIn modern media, it may be true that a women's body parts might be the most attractive thing *initially for a guy*, but its really more of an attention grabber. Once the movie/game starts, the personality of woman comes through. For example: Lara Croft in Tomb Raider (a character model who is heavily sexualized) had her personality and story changed part way through, and fans of the franchise were upset over it.\n\n2.) I don't get why women feel bad about objectification. If men were constantly showed as sex objects I don't think it would bother me. Heck, there are even jokes that \"men are dumb,\" or \"men have 0 emotional IQ\" and I just laugh at it. I feel like if I was seen as just a hunk of muscles that would be kinda awesome if anything. I also get the impression a lot of men would be okay with it too, based on the men I've met in my life. So, I don't understand why it seems only women have an issue with this.\n\n**What would change my view**\n\nI'd like to better understand why women feel bad about objectification, and learn if there is truth to their perceptions of their image regarding it.\n\n* Data/studies showing that men only see women as walking bags of meat.\n\n* Tell me why it doesn't feel good to be seen as a sexy creature. Is this just because men have a higher sex drive?\n\n* Maybe something else could change my view, such as pointing out a flaw in my reasoning. This was just what I could think of for this post.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* Men complain about being expected to be the breadwinner, which could point to just either human not understanding the feeling of being a situation they haven't experienced (ie: haven't experienced objectification so I don't know why it would feel bad)\n\n* If people claim your achievements are due to your looks that would be upsetting.\n\n* Historically, women had to put men as the face of their achievement, and to do that had to sleep with the man. This objectification is bad, because they don't get acknowledgement for their achievement and might sleep with someone they otherwise would not want to.\n\n* \"Being compared to things you buy and own as a woman feels shitty because this is how some men still see us -- as property.\" - and objectification can lead to being compared to things you buy.\n\n* Human qualities being diminished could be dangerous and lead to doing inhumane things to those people.\n\n* Honor killings, where women are killed due to bringing shame on the family for being to sexual.\n\n* There are men who treat women poorly with objectification and can be harmful, especially for younger women who might not know what a good relationship looks like.\n\n* [Study](https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/documents/s73942/Appendix%206%20-%20Journal%20Article.pdf) shows that seeing women as sexual objects leads to more sexual assault of women.",
"date": "2023-12-25",
"id": "18qs46r",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Objectification of women isn't as bad as they make it out to be",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18qs46r/cmv_objectification_of_women_isnt_as_bad_as_they/"
},
{
"author": "Bobbob34",
"body": "> I don't understand why they feel so bad about it. \n\nWhoppee for you. Who cares?\n\nDo you think your feelings are some kind of universal arbiter of truth?\n\nWhy are some men so desperate to both make women uncomfortable and afraid and then try to shame them for it?\n\nhttps://www.thisamericanlife.org/603/transcript",
"date": "2023-12-25",
"id": "kewyjwa",
"parent_id": "18qs46r",
"score": 6,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "RedditExplorer89",
"body": "I hear this in discourse when women wear sexy clothing in movies or video games: that it objectifies women (and I assume the speaker thinks this is a bad thing). This is also usually accompanied with complaints that women are being seen as \"just\" sex objects, and that their other human qualities are being diminished. One women I've met said, \"I want to be seen as more than a bag of warm meat.\"\n\nOn a base level, I do think its bad if someone feels bad, and its clear women feel bad about objectification. In that sense, I'd agree objectification is bad. However, I think these perceptions of their image are distortions, and I don't understand *why* they feel so bad about it. I'll explain the reasoning why I have this view:\n\n1.) Perceptions of objectification are distortions of reality. No guy I've ever met sees women as \"walking vaginas\" or \"bags of warm meat.\" Yeah, sex might be the most attractive thing about a women for some guys, but even the guys trying to constantly get laid understand that they are dealing with a human being who has a brain and feelings. They court women, trying to appeal with intelligent conversation or being sensitive to her feelings (guys that don't do this quickly learn being a douche doesn't get you dates). If they really just wanted warm bags of meat they could much more easily buy meat from the butcher, heat it up in the oven, and play around with that. Or buy a sex doll. But men consistently choose to go after living, breathing women who have brains and opinions.\n\nIn modern media, it may be true that a women's body parts might be the most attractive thing *initially for a guy*, but its really more of an attention grabber. Once the movie/game starts, the personality of woman comes through. For example: Lara Croft in Tomb Raider (a character model who is heavily sexualized) had her personality and story changed part way through, and fans of the franchise were upset over it.\n\n2.) I don't get why women feel bad about objectification. If men were constantly showed as sex objects I don't think it would bother me. Heck, there are even jokes that \"men are dumb,\" or \"men have 0 emotional IQ\" and I just laugh at it. I feel like if I was seen as just a hunk of muscles that would be kinda awesome if anything. I also get the impression a lot of men would be okay with it too, based on the men I've met in my life. So, I don't understand why it seems only women have an issue with this.\n\n**What would change my view**\n\nI'd like to better understand why women feel bad about objectification, and learn if there is truth to their perceptions of their image regarding it.\n\n* Data/studies showing that men only see women as walking bags of meat.\n\n* Tell me why it doesn't feel good to be seen as a sexy creature. Is this just because men have a higher sex drive?\n\n* Maybe something else could change my view, such as pointing out a flaw in my reasoning. This was just what I could think of for this post.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* Men complain about being expected to be the breadwinner, which could point to just either human not understanding the feeling of being a situation they haven't experienced (ie: haven't experienced objectification so I don't know why it would feel bad)\n\n* If people claim your achievements are due to your looks that would be upsetting.\n\n* Historically, women had to put men as the face of their achievement, and to do that had to sleep with the man. This objectification is bad, because they don't get acknowledgement for their achievement and might sleep with someone they otherwise would not want to.\n\n* \"Being compared to things you buy and own as a woman feels shitty because this is how some men still see us -- as property.\" - and objectification can lead to being compared to things you buy.\n\n* Human qualities being diminished could be dangerous and lead to doing inhumane things to those people.\n\n* Honor killings, where women are killed due to bringing shame on the family for being to sexual.\n\n* There are men who treat women poorly with objectification and can be harmful, especially for younger women who might not know what a good relationship looks like.\n\n* [Study](https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/documents/s73942/Appendix%206%20-%20Journal%20Article.pdf) shows that seeing women as sexual objects leads to more sexual assault of women.",
"date": "2023-12-25",
"id": "18qs46r",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Objectification of women isn't as bad as they make it out to be",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18qs46r/cmv_objectification_of_women_isnt_as_bad_as_they/"
},
{
"author": "fifiinsidethebed",
"body": "> No guy I've ever met sees women as \"walking vaginas\" or \"bags of warm meat.\"\n\nAlthough your experience isn't invalid it also doesn't erase the experiences of many women sharing their struggles to be seen as a human by the men they meet.\n\n> If they really just wanted warm bags of meat they could much more easily buy meat from the butcher, heat it up in the oven, and play around with that. Or buy a sex doll.\n\nIf only that was easy as you presented. The men who see women as sex dolls are frequently exposed by women because they won't just buy a sex doll and leave them alone. You seem to forget the part where they also desire to control and own these women. These men are the stalkers, the persistent ex, the incels the women are complaining about. They have an obsession that sadly a simple doll cannot fulfill. \n\n\n> I don't get why women feel bad about objectification.\n\nPeople think objectification is just a word that twitter use here and there to sound smart and granted sometimes they use it for the wrong situation but it's still a serious issue. The way some men are taught to view women can lead to more dangerous consequences than women being an attention grabber in media. It goes from having your body being a public show when you just want to cross the street to being murdered because some guy thought that you belong to him. Hell, even your family can think they have ownership over your body (honory killing). Objectification is bad because it steals the agency that the woman has over her body to make everyone else her judge and sometimes her punisher. \n\n\n> Tell me why it doesn't feel good to be seen as a sexy creature\n\n\nHopefully, you will understand that the safety and well-being of women is a priority over being perceived as \"sexy creature\". Sexual objectification is the center, it's the start that can lead to grievance against women and as we all know can lead to some of the darkest crimes (abuse, murder, rape, sex trafficking, etc..)",
"date": "2023-12-25",
"id": "kex041i",
"parent_id": "18qs46r",
"score": 19,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "RedditExplorer89",
"body": "> Hopefully, you will understand that the safety and well-being of women is a priority over being perceived as \"sexy creature\"\n\nYes, I just don't see how safety and objectification go together yet.\n\n> ...being murdered because some guy thought that you belong to him.\n\nIsn't that type of obsession usually far beyond just wanting the body?\n\n> Hell, even your family can think they have ownership over your body (honory killing).\n\nThat sounds terrible, what is honory killing?",
"date": "2023-12-25",
"id": "kex4e0p",
"parent_id": "kex041i",
"score": -4,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "RedditExplorer89",
"body": "I hear this in discourse when women wear sexy clothing in movies or video games: that it objectifies women (and I assume the speaker thinks this is a bad thing). This is also usually accompanied with complaints that women are being seen as \"just\" sex objects, and that their other human qualities are being diminished. One women I've met said, \"I want to be seen as more than a bag of warm meat.\"\n\nOn a base level, I do think its bad if someone feels bad, and its clear women feel bad about objectification. In that sense, I'd agree objectification is bad. However, I think these perceptions of their image are distortions, and I don't understand *why* they feel so bad about it. I'll explain the reasoning why I have this view:\n\n1.) Perceptions of objectification are distortions of reality. No guy I've ever met sees women as \"walking vaginas\" or \"bags of warm meat.\" Yeah, sex might be the most attractive thing about a women for some guys, but even the guys trying to constantly get laid understand that they are dealing with a human being who has a brain and feelings. They court women, trying to appeal with intelligent conversation or being sensitive to her feelings (guys that don't do this quickly learn being a douche doesn't get you dates). If they really just wanted warm bags of meat they could much more easily buy meat from the butcher, heat it up in the oven, and play around with that. Or buy a sex doll. But men consistently choose to go after living, breathing women who have brains and opinions.\n\nIn modern media, it may be true that a women's body parts might be the most attractive thing *initially for a guy*, but its really more of an attention grabber. Once the movie/game starts, the personality of woman comes through. For example: Lara Croft in Tomb Raider (a character model who is heavily sexualized) had her personality and story changed part way through, and fans of the franchise were upset over it.\n\n2.) I don't get why women feel bad about objectification. If men were constantly showed as sex objects I don't think it would bother me. Heck, there are even jokes that \"men are dumb,\" or \"men have 0 emotional IQ\" and I just laugh at it. I feel like if I was seen as just a hunk of muscles that would be kinda awesome if anything. I also get the impression a lot of men would be okay with it too, based on the men I've met in my life. So, I don't understand why it seems only women have an issue with this.\n\n**What would change my view**\n\nI'd like to better understand why women feel bad about objectification, and learn if there is truth to their perceptions of their image regarding it.\n\n* Data/studies showing that men only see women as walking bags of meat.\n\n* Tell me why it doesn't feel good to be seen as a sexy creature. Is this just because men have a higher sex drive?\n\n* Maybe something else could change my view, such as pointing out a flaw in my reasoning. This was just what I could think of for this post.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* Men complain about being expected to be the breadwinner, which could point to just either human not understanding the feeling of being a situation they haven't experienced (ie: haven't experienced objectification so I don't know why it would feel bad)\n\n* If people claim your achievements are due to your looks that would be upsetting.\n\n* Historically, women had to put men as the face of their achievement, and to do that had to sleep with the man. This objectification is bad, because they don't get acknowledgement for their achievement and might sleep with someone they otherwise would not want to.\n\n* \"Being compared to things you buy and own as a woman feels shitty because this is how some men still see us -- as property.\" - and objectification can lead to being compared to things you buy.\n\n* Human qualities being diminished could be dangerous and lead to doing inhumane things to those people.\n\n* Honor killings, where women are killed due to bringing shame on the family for being to sexual.\n\n* There are men who treat women poorly with objectification and can be harmful, especially for younger women who might not know what a good relationship looks like.\n\n* [Study](https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/documents/s73942/Appendix%206%20-%20Journal%20Article.pdf) shows that seeing women as sexual objects leads to more sexual assault of women.",
"date": "2023-12-25",
"id": "18qs46r",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Objectification of women isn't as bad as they make it out to be",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18qs46r/cmv_objectification_of_women_isnt_as_bad_as_they/"
},
{
"author": "No_Scarcity8249",
"body": "Says a dude. The first issue here is that you don’t get to be in on the debate. Why do you even get to have an opinion on what’s good for someone else’s let alone hag the people on the planet? You aren’t the victim. It doesn’t affect you negatively.",
"date": "2023-12-25",
"id": "kex1jjo",
"parent_id": "18qs46r",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "RedditExplorer89",
"body": " I would assume women would rather me empathize with them on this issue rather than have no opinion. I guess if I see more negativity in the world that could be a downside, but its just something I've heard of from women so its something I would like to be more aware of.",
"date": "2023-12-25",
"id": "kex4ocp",
"parent_id": "kex1jjo",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "RedditExplorer89",
"body": "I hear this in discourse when women wear sexy clothing in movies or video games: that it objectifies women (and I assume the speaker thinks this is a bad thing). This is also usually accompanied with complaints that women are being seen as \"just\" sex objects, and that their other human qualities are being diminished. One women I've met said, \"I want to be seen as more than a bag of warm meat.\"\n\nOn a base level, I do think its bad if someone feels bad, and its clear women feel bad about objectification. In that sense, I'd agree objectification is bad. However, I think these perceptions of their image are distortions, and I don't understand *why* they feel so bad about it. I'll explain the reasoning why I have this view:\n\n1.) Perceptions of objectification are distortions of reality. No guy I've ever met sees women as \"walking vaginas\" or \"bags of warm meat.\" Yeah, sex might be the most attractive thing about a women for some guys, but even the guys trying to constantly get laid understand that they are dealing with a human being who has a brain and feelings. They court women, trying to appeal with intelligent conversation or being sensitive to her feelings (guys that don't do this quickly learn being a douche doesn't get you dates). If they really just wanted warm bags of meat they could much more easily buy meat from the butcher, heat it up in the oven, and play around with that. Or buy a sex doll. But men consistently choose to go after living, breathing women who have brains and opinions.\n\nIn modern media, it may be true that a women's body parts might be the most attractive thing *initially for a guy*, but its really more of an attention grabber. Once the movie/game starts, the personality of woman comes through. For example: Lara Croft in Tomb Raider (a character model who is heavily sexualized) had her personality and story changed part way through, and fans of the franchise were upset over it.\n\n2.) I don't get why women feel bad about objectification. If men were constantly showed as sex objects I don't think it would bother me. Heck, there are even jokes that \"men are dumb,\" or \"men have 0 emotional IQ\" and I just laugh at it. I feel like if I was seen as just a hunk of muscles that would be kinda awesome if anything. I also get the impression a lot of men would be okay with it too, based on the men I've met in my life. So, I don't understand why it seems only women have an issue with this.\n\n**What would change my view**\n\nI'd like to better understand why women feel bad about objectification, and learn if there is truth to their perceptions of their image regarding it.\n\n* Data/studies showing that men only see women as walking bags of meat.\n\n* Tell me why it doesn't feel good to be seen as a sexy creature. Is this just because men have a higher sex drive?\n\n* Maybe something else could change my view, such as pointing out a flaw in my reasoning. This was just what I could think of for this post.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* Men complain about being expected to be the breadwinner, which could point to just either human not understanding the feeling of being a situation they haven't experienced (ie: haven't experienced objectification so I don't know why it would feel bad)\n\n* If people claim your achievements are due to your looks that would be upsetting.\n\n* Historically, women had to put men as the face of their achievement, and to do that had to sleep with the man. This objectification is bad, because they don't get acknowledgement for their achievement and might sleep with someone they otherwise would not want to.\n\n* \"Being compared to things you buy and own as a woman feels shitty because this is how some men still see us -- as property.\" - and objectification can lead to being compared to things you buy.\n\n* Human qualities being diminished could be dangerous and lead to doing inhumane things to those people.\n\n* Honor killings, where women are killed due to bringing shame on the family for being to sexual.\n\n* There are men who treat women poorly with objectification and can be harmful, especially for younger women who might not know what a good relationship looks like.\n\n* [Study](https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/documents/s73942/Appendix%206%20-%20Journal%20Article.pdf) shows that seeing women as sexual objects leads to more sexual assault of women.",
"date": "2023-12-25",
"id": "18qs46r",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Objectification of women isn't as bad as they make it out to be",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18qs46r/cmv_objectification_of_women_isnt_as_bad_as_they/"
},
{
"author": "bfduinxdjnkydd",
"body": "It doesn’t feel good to be seen as a “sexy creature” because I’m not a creature and I probably don’t want to fuck you. I’m a human being and it doesn’t mean anything to me if I’m sexy or not. I know you don’t mean anything by your use of the word “creature” here, but here’s a thought exercise: can you think of a situation where you would describe another man as a “creature”, in a positive way where you view him as an equal?\n\nIt’s not flattering to be seen as sexy by a random man. If anything it just makes me feel wary of them, because I have to second guess everything they say or do towards me, because I can’t be sure if it’s genuine or they’re just trying to fuck me. It causes me anxiety, because I have to be very careful in how I interact with them in this situation, because I don’t want to inadvertently give them the impression that I’m interested by being too “nice” or too polite. \n\nThats why objectification feels bad, to me.",
"date": "2023-12-25",
"id": "kex5aoj",
"parent_id": "18qs46r",
"score": 4,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "RedditExplorer89",
"body": "I hear this in discourse when women wear sexy clothing in movies or video games: that it objectifies women (and I assume the speaker thinks this is a bad thing). This is also usually accompanied with complaints that women are being seen as \"just\" sex objects, and that their other human qualities are being diminished. One women I've met said, \"I want to be seen as more than a bag of warm meat.\"\n\nOn a base level, I do think its bad if someone feels bad, and its clear women feel bad about objectification. In that sense, I'd agree objectification is bad. However, I think these perceptions of their image are distortions, and I don't understand *why* they feel so bad about it. I'll explain the reasoning why I have this view:\n\n1.) Perceptions of objectification are distortions of reality. No guy I've ever met sees women as \"walking vaginas\" or \"bags of warm meat.\" Yeah, sex might be the most attractive thing about a women for some guys, but even the guys trying to constantly get laid understand that they are dealing with a human being who has a brain and feelings. They court women, trying to appeal with intelligent conversation or being sensitive to her feelings (guys that don't do this quickly learn being a douche doesn't get you dates). If they really just wanted warm bags of meat they could much more easily buy meat from the butcher, heat it up in the oven, and play around with that. Or buy a sex doll. But men consistently choose to go after living, breathing women who have brains and opinions.\n\nIn modern media, it may be true that a women's body parts might be the most attractive thing *initially for a guy*, but its really more of an attention grabber. Once the movie/game starts, the personality of woman comes through. For example: Lara Croft in Tomb Raider (a character model who is heavily sexualized) had her personality and story changed part way through, and fans of the franchise were upset over it.\n\n2.) I don't get why women feel bad about objectification. If men were constantly showed as sex objects I don't think it would bother me. Heck, there are even jokes that \"men are dumb,\" or \"men have 0 emotional IQ\" and I just laugh at it. I feel like if I was seen as just a hunk of muscles that would be kinda awesome if anything. I also get the impression a lot of men would be okay with it too, based on the men I've met in my life. So, I don't understand why it seems only women have an issue with this.\n\n**What would change my view**\n\nI'd like to better understand why women feel bad about objectification, and learn if there is truth to their perceptions of their image regarding it.\n\n* Data/studies showing that men only see women as walking bags of meat.\n\n* Tell me why it doesn't feel good to be seen as a sexy creature. Is this just because men have a higher sex drive?\n\n* Maybe something else could change my view, such as pointing out a flaw in my reasoning. This was just what I could think of for this post.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* Men complain about being expected to be the breadwinner, which could point to just either human not understanding the feeling of being a situation they haven't experienced (ie: haven't experienced objectification so I don't know why it would feel bad)\n\n* If people claim your achievements are due to your looks that would be upsetting.\n\n* Historically, women had to put men as the face of their achievement, and to do that had to sleep with the man. This objectification is bad, because they don't get acknowledgement for their achievement and might sleep with someone they otherwise would not want to.\n\n* \"Being compared to things you buy and own as a woman feels shitty because this is how some men still see us -- as property.\" - and objectification can lead to being compared to things you buy.\n\n* Human qualities being diminished could be dangerous and lead to doing inhumane things to those people.\n\n* Honor killings, where women are killed due to bringing shame on the family for being to sexual.\n\n* There are men who treat women poorly with objectification and can be harmful, especially for younger women who might not know what a good relationship looks like.\n\n* [Study](https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/documents/s73942/Appendix%206%20-%20Journal%20Article.pdf) shows that seeing women as sexual objects leads to more sexual assault of women.",
"date": "2023-12-25",
"id": "18qs46r",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Objectification of women isn't as bad as they make it out to be",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18qs46r/cmv_objectification_of_women_isnt_as_bad_as_they/"
},
{
"author": "Enni2S",
"body": "The interesting thing is that with your opening post, you are kind of already showing what the issue is. You are doing a hell of a lot of objectification when describing women purely in terms of their value to men. It's not just about women being seen purely as sex objects (though that is a large part of it), but being seen as objects *in general*. \n\nYou talk about how guys might initially be only interested in looks, but later they'll see personality etc. This is still about a woman's value to men, instead of about women as people. Your whole post is about what makes a woman attractive to you and other men, because that's where her 'value' is in this argument, and it becomes their only value. Sexualisation of men simply doesn't work the same way (by and large). I have no problem with sexualisation, but I do with objectification. It is not the same thing. \n\nImagine if you worked hard, wrote a book, ran 20 miles for charity etc, but *all* that mattered to people was how attractive you were to them. That's how men talk about women, that's how women are treated in society. It sucks.",
"date": "2023-12-25",
"id": "kex5rbh",
"parent_id": "18qs46r",
"score": 15,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "RedditExplorer89",
"body": "I hear this in discourse when women wear sexy clothing in movies or video games: that it objectifies women (and I assume the speaker thinks this is a bad thing). This is also usually accompanied with complaints that women are being seen as \"just\" sex objects, and that their other human qualities are being diminished. One women I've met said, \"I want to be seen as more than a bag of warm meat.\"\n\nOn a base level, I do think its bad if someone feels bad, and its clear women feel bad about objectification. In that sense, I'd agree objectification is bad. However, I think these perceptions of their image are distortions, and I don't understand *why* they feel so bad about it. I'll explain the reasoning why I have this view:\n\n1.) Perceptions of objectification are distortions of reality. No guy I've ever met sees women as \"walking vaginas\" or \"bags of warm meat.\" Yeah, sex might be the most attractive thing about a women for some guys, but even the guys trying to constantly get laid understand that they are dealing with a human being who has a brain and feelings. They court women, trying to appeal with intelligent conversation or being sensitive to her feelings (guys that don't do this quickly learn being a douche doesn't get you dates). If they really just wanted warm bags of meat they could much more easily buy meat from the butcher, heat it up in the oven, and play around with that. Or buy a sex doll. But men consistently choose to go after living, breathing women who have brains and opinions.\n\nIn modern media, it may be true that a women's body parts might be the most attractive thing *initially for a guy*, but its really more of an attention grabber. Once the movie/game starts, the personality of woman comes through. For example: Lara Croft in Tomb Raider (a character model who is heavily sexualized) had her personality and story changed part way through, and fans of the franchise were upset over it.\n\n2.) I don't get why women feel bad about objectification. If men were constantly showed as sex objects I don't think it would bother me. Heck, there are even jokes that \"men are dumb,\" or \"men have 0 emotional IQ\" and I just laugh at it. I feel like if I was seen as just a hunk of muscles that would be kinda awesome if anything. I also get the impression a lot of men would be okay with it too, based on the men I've met in my life. So, I don't understand why it seems only women have an issue with this.\n\n**What would change my view**\n\nI'd like to better understand why women feel bad about objectification, and learn if there is truth to their perceptions of their image regarding it.\n\n* Data/studies showing that men only see women as walking bags of meat.\n\n* Tell me why it doesn't feel good to be seen as a sexy creature. Is this just because men have a higher sex drive?\n\n* Maybe something else could change my view, such as pointing out a flaw in my reasoning. This was just what I could think of for this post.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* Men complain about being expected to be the breadwinner, which could point to just either human not understanding the feeling of being a situation they haven't experienced (ie: haven't experienced objectification so I don't know why it would feel bad)\n\n* If people claim your achievements are due to your looks that would be upsetting.\n\n* Historically, women had to put men as the face of their achievement, and to do that had to sleep with the man. This objectification is bad, because they don't get acknowledgement for their achievement and might sleep with someone they otherwise would not want to.\n\n* \"Being compared to things you buy and own as a woman feels shitty because this is how some men still see us -- as property.\" - and objectification can lead to being compared to things you buy.\n\n* Human qualities being diminished could be dangerous and lead to doing inhumane things to those people.\n\n* Honor killings, where women are killed due to bringing shame on the family for being to sexual.\n\n* There are men who treat women poorly with objectification and can be harmful, especially for younger women who might not know what a good relationship looks like.\n\n* [Study](https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/documents/s73942/Appendix%206%20-%20Journal%20Article.pdf) shows that seeing women as sexual objects leads to more sexual assault of women.",
"date": "2023-12-25",
"id": "18qs46r",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Objectification of women isn't as bad as they make it out to be",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18qs46r/cmv_objectification_of_women_isnt_as_bad_as_they/"
},
{
"author": "Flat_Satisfaction918",
"body": ">Perceptions of objectification are distortions of reality. No guy I've ever met sees women as \"walking vaginas\" or \"bags of warm meat.\"\n\nYou said that because you never see one, and that's doesn't mean it's don't exist.",
"date": "2023-12-25",
"id": "kexw88i",
"parent_id": "18qs46r",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Flat_Satisfaction918",
"body": "> I don't get why women feel bad about objectification. If men were constantly showed as sex objects I don't think it would bother me. Heck, there are even jokes that \"men are dumb,\" or \"men have 0 emotional IQ\" and I just laugh at it.\n\nYou don't have problems with it doesn't mean other will feel the same way as you. The idea of 'I don't have problems with it, why do they have to overreacting?' Is sounds really self-centred to use your feelings as standards.",
"date": "2023-12-25",
"id": "kexwyit",
"parent_id": "kexw88i",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "RedditExplorer89",
"body": "I hear this in discourse when women wear sexy clothing in movies or video games: that it objectifies women (and I assume the speaker thinks this is a bad thing). This is also usually accompanied with complaints that women are being seen as \"just\" sex objects, and that their other human qualities are being diminished. One women I've met said, \"I want to be seen as more than a bag of warm meat.\"\n\nOn a base level, I do think its bad if someone feels bad, and its clear women feel bad about objectification. In that sense, I'd agree objectification is bad. However, I think these perceptions of their image are distortions, and I don't understand *why* they feel so bad about it. I'll explain the reasoning why I have this view:\n\n1.) Perceptions of objectification are distortions of reality. No guy I've ever met sees women as \"walking vaginas\" or \"bags of warm meat.\" Yeah, sex might be the most attractive thing about a women for some guys, but even the guys trying to constantly get laid understand that they are dealing with a human being who has a brain and feelings. They court women, trying to appeal with intelligent conversation or being sensitive to her feelings (guys that don't do this quickly learn being a douche doesn't get you dates). If they really just wanted warm bags of meat they could much more easily buy meat from the butcher, heat it up in the oven, and play around with that. Or buy a sex doll. But men consistently choose to go after living, breathing women who have brains and opinions.\n\nIn modern media, it may be true that a women's body parts might be the most attractive thing *initially for a guy*, but its really more of an attention grabber. Once the movie/game starts, the personality of woman comes through. For example: Lara Croft in Tomb Raider (a character model who is heavily sexualized) had her personality and story changed part way through, and fans of the franchise were upset over it.\n\n2.) I don't get why women feel bad about objectification. If men were constantly showed as sex objects I don't think it would bother me. Heck, there are even jokes that \"men are dumb,\" or \"men have 0 emotional IQ\" and I just laugh at it. I feel like if I was seen as just a hunk of muscles that would be kinda awesome if anything. I also get the impression a lot of men would be okay with it too, based on the men I've met in my life. So, I don't understand why it seems only women have an issue with this.\n\n**What would change my view**\n\nI'd like to better understand why women feel bad about objectification, and learn if there is truth to their perceptions of their image regarding it.\n\n* Data/studies showing that men only see women as walking bags of meat.\n\n* Tell me why it doesn't feel good to be seen as a sexy creature. Is this just because men have a higher sex drive?\n\n* Maybe something else could change my view, such as pointing out a flaw in my reasoning. This was just what I could think of for this post.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* Men complain about being expected to be the breadwinner, which could point to just either human not understanding the feeling of being a situation they haven't experienced (ie: haven't experienced objectification so I don't know why it would feel bad)\n\n* If people claim your achievements are due to your looks that would be upsetting.\n\n* Historically, women had to put men as the face of their achievement, and to do that had to sleep with the man. This objectification is bad, because they don't get acknowledgement for their achievement and might sleep with someone they otherwise would not want to.\n\n* \"Being compared to things you buy and own as a woman feels shitty because this is how some men still see us -- as property.\" - and objectification can lead to being compared to things you buy.\n\n* Human qualities being diminished could be dangerous and lead to doing inhumane things to those people.\n\n* Honor killings, where women are killed due to bringing shame on the family for being to sexual.\n\n* There are men who treat women poorly with objectification and can be harmful, especially for younger women who might not know what a good relationship looks like.\n\n* [Study](https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/documents/s73942/Appendix%206%20-%20Journal%20Article.pdf) shows that seeing women as sexual objects leads to more sexual assault of women.",
"date": "2023-12-25",
"id": "18qs46r",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Objectification of women isn't as bad as they make it out to be",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18qs46r/cmv_objectification_of_women_isnt_as_bad_as_they/"
},
{
"author": "1Goldlady2",
"body": "You haven't met a guy I actually met who told me his ideal sexual preference would be if he didn't have to deal with women at all. His ideal preference, he said, would just be a wall of vaginas nailed to a wall that he could use as he pleased. Some men objectify women to a point that no human being should or would be willing to tolerate.",
"date": "2023-12-25",
"id": "kexzz63",
"parent_id": "18qs46r",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "RedditExplorer89",
"body": "I hear this in discourse when women wear sexy clothing in movies or video games: that it objectifies women (and I assume the speaker thinks this is a bad thing). This is also usually accompanied with complaints that women are being seen as \"just\" sex objects, and that their other human qualities are being diminished. One women I've met said, \"I want to be seen as more than a bag of warm meat.\"\n\nOn a base level, I do think its bad if someone feels bad, and its clear women feel bad about objectification. In that sense, I'd agree objectification is bad. However, I think these perceptions of their image are distortions, and I don't understand *why* they feel so bad about it. I'll explain the reasoning why I have this view:\n\n1.) Perceptions of objectification are distortions of reality. No guy I've ever met sees women as \"walking vaginas\" or \"bags of warm meat.\" Yeah, sex might be the most attractive thing about a women for some guys, but even the guys trying to constantly get laid understand that they are dealing with a human being who has a brain and feelings. They court women, trying to appeal with intelligent conversation or being sensitive to her feelings (guys that don't do this quickly learn being a douche doesn't get you dates). If they really just wanted warm bags of meat they could much more easily buy meat from the butcher, heat it up in the oven, and play around with that. Or buy a sex doll. But men consistently choose to go after living, breathing women who have brains and opinions.\n\nIn modern media, it may be true that a women's body parts might be the most attractive thing *initially for a guy*, but its really more of an attention grabber. Once the movie/game starts, the personality of woman comes through. For example: Lara Croft in Tomb Raider (a character model who is heavily sexualized) had her personality and story changed part way through, and fans of the franchise were upset over it.\n\n2.) I don't get why women feel bad about objectification. If men were constantly showed as sex objects I don't think it would bother me. Heck, there are even jokes that \"men are dumb,\" or \"men have 0 emotional IQ\" and I just laugh at it. I feel like if I was seen as just a hunk of muscles that would be kinda awesome if anything. I also get the impression a lot of men would be okay with it too, based on the men I've met in my life. So, I don't understand why it seems only women have an issue with this.\n\n**What would change my view**\n\nI'd like to better understand why women feel bad about objectification, and learn if there is truth to their perceptions of their image regarding it.\n\n* Data/studies showing that men only see women as walking bags of meat.\n\n* Tell me why it doesn't feel good to be seen as a sexy creature. Is this just because men have a higher sex drive?\n\n* Maybe something else could change my view, such as pointing out a flaw in my reasoning. This was just what I could think of for this post.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* Men complain about being expected to be the breadwinner, which could point to just either human not understanding the feeling of being a situation they haven't experienced (ie: haven't experienced objectification so I don't know why it would feel bad)\n\n* If people claim your achievements are due to your looks that would be upsetting.\n\n* Historically, women had to put men as the face of their achievement, and to do that had to sleep with the man. This objectification is bad, because they don't get acknowledgement for their achievement and might sleep with someone they otherwise would not want to.\n\n* \"Being compared to things you buy and own as a woman feels shitty because this is how some men still see us -- as property.\" - and objectification can lead to being compared to things you buy.\n\n* Human qualities being diminished could be dangerous and lead to doing inhumane things to those people.\n\n* Honor killings, where women are killed due to bringing shame on the family for being to sexual.\n\n* There are men who treat women poorly with objectification and can be harmful, especially for younger women who might not know what a good relationship looks like.\n\n* [Study](https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/documents/s73942/Appendix%206%20-%20Journal%20Article.pdf) shows that seeing women as sexual objects leads to more sexual assault of women.",
"date": "2023-12-25",
"id": "18qs46r",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Objectification of women isn't as bad as they make it out to be",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18qs46r/cmv_objectification_of_women_isnt_as_bad_as_they/"
},
{
"author": "666throwawaytrash",
"body": "I could step toe to toe with the men at my company because they were my mentors and I was still demeaned for being a woman. They fetishized me when I just wanted respect. I live as a recluse to avoid interacting with guys in general because I've gone through child abuse and the cycle continues.",
"date": "2023-12-25",
"id": "key2hxm",
"parent_id": "18qs46r",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "RedditExplorer89",
"body": "I'm sorry to hear that. Do you think there is anything men could do to make up for that bad experience in your life? Being pushed out of society because of the opposite gender sounds rough.",
"date": "2023-12-26",
"id": "kezf1i4",
"parent_id": "key2hxm",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "RedditExplorer89",
"body": "I hear this in discourse when women wear sexy clothing in movies or video games: that it objectifies women (and I assume the speaker thinks this is a bad thing). This is also usually accompanied with complaints that women are being seen as \"just\" sex objects, and that their other human qualities are being diminished. One women I've met said, \"I want to be seen as more than a bag of warm meat.\"\n\nOn a base level, I do think its bad if someone feels bad, and its clear women feel bad about objectification. In that sense, I'd agree objectification is bad. However, I think these perceptions of their image are distortions, and I don't understand *why* they feel so bad about it. I'll explain the reasoning why I have this view:\n\n1.) Perceptions of objectification are distortions of reality. No guy I've ever met sees women as \"walking vaginas\" or \"bags of warm meat.\" Yeah, sex might be the most attractive thing about a women for some guys, but even the guys trying to constantly get laid understand that they are dealing with a human being who has a brain and feelings. They court women, trying to appeal with intelligent conversation or being sensitive to her feelings (guys that don't do this quickly learn being a douche doesn't get you dates). If they really just wanted warm bags of meat they could much more easily buy meat from the butcher, heat it up in the oven, and play around with that. Or buy a sex doll. But men consistently choose to go after living, breathing women who have brains and opinions.\n\nIn modern media, it may be true that a women's body parts might be the most attractive thing *initially for a guy*, but its really more of an attention grabber. Once the movie/game starts, the personality of woman comes through. For example: Lara Croft in Tomb Raider (a character model who is heavily sexualized) had her personality and story changed part way through, and fans of the franchise were upset over it.\n\n2.) I don't get why women feel bad about objectification. If men were constantly showed as sex objects I don't think it would bother me. Heck, there are even jokes that \"men are dumb,\" or \"men have 0 emotional IQ\" and I just laugh at it. I feel like if I was seen as just a hunk of muscles that would be kinda awesome if anything. I also get the impression a lot of men would be okay with it too, based on the men I've met in my life. So, I don't understand why it seems only women have an issue with this.\n\n**What would change my view**\n\nI'd like to better understand why women feel bad about objectification, and learn if there is truth to their perceptions of their image regarding it.\n\n* Data/studies showing that men only see women as walking bags of meat.\n\n* Tell me why it doesn't feel good to be seen as a sexy creature. Is this just because men have a higher sex drive?\n\n* Maybe something else could change my view, such as pointing out a flaw in my reasoning. This was just what I could think of for this post.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* Men complain about being expected to be the breadwinner, which could point to just either human not understanding the feeling of being a situation they haven't experienced (ie: haven't experienced objectification so I don't know why it would feel bad)\n\n* If people claim your achievements are due to your looks that would be upsetting.\n\n* Historically, women had to put men as the face of their achievement, and to do that had to sleep with the man. This objectification is bad, because they don't get acknowledgement for their achievement and might sleep with someone they otherwise would not want to.\n\n* \"Being compared to things you buy and own as a woman feels shitty because this is how some men still see us -- as property.\" - and objectification can lead to being compared to things you buy.\n\n* Human qualities being diminished could be dangerous and lead to doing inhumane things to those people.\n\n* Honor killings, where women are killed due to bringing shame on the family for being to sexual.\n\n* There are men who treat women poorly with objectification and can be harmful, especially for younger women who might not know what a good relationship looks like.\n\n* [Study](https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/documents/s73942/Appendix%206%20-%20Journal%20Article.pdf) shows that seeing women as sexual objects leads to more sexual assault of women.",
"date": "2023-12-25",
"id": "18qs46r",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Objectification of women isn't as bad as they make it out to be",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18qs46r/cmv_objectification_of_women_isnt_as_bad_as_they/"
},
{
"author": "luuls_",
"body": "Start by reading some radical feminism. Not because they’re right but because it will get you a free pass onto women’s heads and the reason why we experience things so differently. \n\nAlso, you’re not considering how men can *literally* buy their way into women’s bodies, i.e., prostitution (sometimes involving poor or underage women), pornography, rape culture, marital rape, arranged marriages, etc etc",
"date": "2023-12-26",
"id": "keycmv0",
"parent_id": "18qs46r",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "RedditExplorer89",
"body": "I hear this in discourse when women wear sexy clothing in movies or video games: that it objectifies women (and I assume the speaker thinks this is a bad thing). This is also usually accompanied with complaints that women are being seen as \"just\" sex objects, and that their other human qualities are being diminished. One women I've met said, \"I want to be seen as more than a bag of warm meat.\"\n\nOn a base level, I do think its bad if someone feels bad, and its clear women feel bad about objectification. In that sense, I'd agree objectification is bad. However, I think these perceptions of their image are distortions, and I don't understand *why* they feel so bad about it. I'll explain the reasoning why I have this view:\n\n1.) Perceptions of objectification are distortions of reality. No guy I've ever met sees women as \"walking vaginas\" or \"bags of warm meat.\" Yeah, sex might be the most attractive thing about a women for some guys, but even the guys trying to constantly get laid understand that they are dealing with a human being who has a brain and feelings. They court women, trying to appeal with intelligent conversation or being sensitive to her feelings (guys that don't do this quickly learn being a douche doesn't get you dates). If they really just wanted warm bags of meat they could much more easily buy meat from the butcher, heat it up in the oven, and play around with that. Or buy a sex doll. But men consistently choose to go after living, breathing women who have brains and opinions.\n\nIn modern media, it may be true that a women's body parts might be the most attractive thing *initially for a guy*, but its really more of an attention grabber. Once the movie/game starts, the personality of woman comes through. For example: Lara Croft in Tomb Raider (a character model who is heavily sexualized) had her personality and story changed part way through, and fans of the franchise were upset over it.\n\n2.) I don't get why women feel bad about objectification. If men were constantly showed as sex objects I don't think it would bother me. Heck, there are even jokes that \"men are dumb,\" or \"men have 0 emotional IQ\" and I just laugh at it. I feel like if I was seen as just a hunk of muscles that would be kinda awesome if anything. I also get the impression a lot of men would be okay with it too, based on the men I've met in my life. So, I don't understand why it seems only women have an issue with this.\n\n**What would change my view**\n\nI'd like to better understand why women feel bad about objectification, and learn if there is truth to their perceptions of their image regarding it.\n\n* Data/studies showing that men only see women as walking bags of meat.\n\n* Tell me why it doesn't feel good to be seen as a sexy creature. Is this just because men have a higher sex drive?\n\n* Maybe something else could change my view, such as pointing out a flaw in my reasoning. This was just what I could think of for this post.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* Men complain about being expected to be the breadwinner, which could point to just either human not understanding the feeling of being a situation they haven't experienced (ie: haven't experienced objectification so I don't know why it would feel bad)\n\n* If people claim your achievements are due to your looks that would be upsetting.\n\n* Historically, women had to put men as the face of their achievement, and to do that had to sleep with the man. This objectification is bad, because they don't get acknowledgement for their achievement and might sleep with someone they otherwise would not want to.\n\n* \"Being compared to things you buy and own as a woman feels shitty because this is how some men still see us -- as property.\" - and objectification can lead to being compared to things you buy.\n\n* Human qualities being diminished could be dangerous and lead to doing inhumane things to those people.\n\n* Honor killings, where women are killed due to bringing shame on the family for being to sexual.\n\n* There are men who treat women poorly with objectification and can be harmful, especially for younger women who might not know what a good relationship looks like.\n\n* [Study](https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/documents/s73942/Appendix%206%20-%20Journal%20Article.pdf) shows that seeing women as sexual objects leads to more sexual assault of women.",
"date": "2023-12-25",
"id": "18qs46r",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Objectification of women isn't as bad as they make it out to be",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18qs46r/cmv_objectification_of_women_isnt_as_bad_as_they/"
},
{
"author": "ConsultJimMoriarty",
"body": "Hello, have your met the incel community?",
"date": "2023-12-26",
"id": "keyjrnf",
"parent_id": "18qs46r",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "RedditExplorer89",
"body": "Technically I'm an incel, but I try to avoid the community as it doesn't seem like a great environment. From what I hear though they are hostile towards women.",
"date": "2023-12-26",
"id": "kezgwmt",
"parent_id": "keyjrnf",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "RedditExplorer89",
"body": "I hear this in discourse when women wear sexy clothing in movies or video games: that it objectifies women (and I assume the speaker thinks this is a bad thing). This is also usually accompanied with complaints that women are being seen as \"just\" sex objects, and that their other human qualities are being diminished. One women I've met said, \"I want to be seen as more than a bag of warm meat.\"\n\nOn a base level, I do think its bad if someone feels bad, and its clear women feel bad about objectification. In that sense, I'd agree objectification is bad. However, I think these perceptions of their image are distortions, and I don't understand *why* they feel so bad about it. I'll explain the reasoning why I have this view:\n\n1.) Perceptions of objectification are distortions of reality. No guy I've ever met sees women as \"walking vaginas\" or \"bags of warm meat.\" Yeah, sex might be the most attractive thing about a women for some guys, but even the guys trying to constantly get laid understand that they are dealing with a human being who has a brain and feelings. They court women, trying to appeal with intelligent conversation or being sensitive to her feelings (guys that don't do this quickly learn being a douche doesn't get you dates). If they really just wanted warm bags of meat they could much more easily buy meat from the butcher, heat it up in the oven, and play around with that. Or buy a sex doll. But men consistently choose to go after living, breathing women who have brains and opinions.\n\nIn modern media, it may be true that a women's body parts might be the most attractive thing *initially for a guy*, but its really more of an attention grabber. Once the movie/game starts, the personality of woman comes through. For example: Lara Croft in Tomb Raider (a character model who is heavily sexualized) had her personality and story changed part way through, and fans of the franchise were upset over it.\n\n2.) I don't get why women feel bad about objectification. If men were constantly showed as sex objects I don't think it would bother me. Heck, there are even jokes that \"men are dumb,\" or \"men have 0 emotional IQ\" and I just laugh at it. I feel like if I was seen as just a hunk of muscles that would be kinda awesome if anything. I also get the impression a lot of men would be okay with it too, based on the men I've met in my life. So, I don't understand why it seems only women have an issue with this.\n\n**What would change my view**\n\nI'd like to better understand why women feel bad about objectification, and learn if there is truth to their perceptions of their image regarding it.\n\n* Data/studies showing that men only see women as walking bags of meat.\n\n* Tell me why it doesn't feel good to be seen as a sexy creature. Is this just because men have a higher sex drive?\n\n* Maybe something else could change my view, such as pointing out a flaw in my reasoning. This was just what I could think of for this post.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* Men complain about being expected to be the breadwinner, which could point to just either human not understanding the feeling of being a situation they haven't experienced (ie: haven't experienced objectification so I don't know why it would feel bad)\n\n* If people claim your achievements are due to your looks that would be upsetting.\n\n* Historically, women had to put men as the face of their achievement, and to do that had to sleep with the man. This objectification is bad, because they don't get acknowledgement for their achievement and might sleep with someone they otherwise would not want to.\n\n* \"Being compared to things you buy and own as a woman feels shitty because this is how some men still see us -- as property.\" - and objectification can lead to being compared to things you buy.\n\n* Human qualities being diminished could be dangerous and lead to doing inhumane things to those people.\n\n* Honor killings, where women are killed due to bringing shame on the family for being to sexual.\n\n* There are men who treat women poorly with objectification and can be harmful, especially for younger women who might not know what a good relationship looks like.\n\n* [Study](https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/documents/s73942/Appendix%206%20-%20Journal%20Article.pdf) shows that seeing women as sexual objects leads to more sexual assault of women.",
"date": "2023-12-25",
"id": "18qs46r",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Objectification of women isn't as bad as they make it out to be",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18qs46r/cmv_objectification_of_women_isnt_as_bad_as_they/"
},
{
"author": "sadopossum",
"body": "I want to kill myself every day because I don't look perfect so idk, can't be that great.",
"date": "2023-12-26",
"id": "keyxji5",
"parent_id": "18qs46r",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "RedditExplorer89",
"body": "I'm sorry to hear that. As I mentioned in my post, I agree that since it causes suffering, it is bad in that sense, regardless of anything else.",
"date": "2023-12-26",
"id": "kezeob5",
"parent_id": "keyxji5",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "RedditExplorer89",
"body": "I hear this in discourse when women wear sexy clothing in movies or video games: that it objectifies women (and I assume the speaker thinks this is a bad thing). This is also usually accompanied with complaints that women are being seen as \"just\" sex objects, and that their other human qualities are being diminished. One women I've met said, \"I want to be seen as more than a bag of warm meat.\"\n\nOn a base level, I do think its bad if someone feels bad, and its clear women feel bad about objectification. In that sense, I'd agree objectification is bad. However, I think these perceptions of their image are distortions, and I don't understand *why* they feel so bad about it. I'll explain the reasoning why I have this view:\n\n1.) Perceptions of objectification are distortions of reality. No guy I've ever met sees women as \"walking vaginas\" or \"bags of warm meat.\" Yeah, sex might be the most attractive thing about a women for some guys, but even the guys trying to constantly get laid understand that they are dealing with a human being who has a brain and feelings. They court women, trying to appeal with intelligent conversation or being sensitive to her feelings (guys that don't do this quickly learn being a douche doesn't get you dates). If they really just wanted warm bags of meat they could much more easily buy meat from the butcher, heat it up in the oven, and play around with that. Or buy a sex doll. But men consistently choose to go after living, breathing women who have brains and opinions.\n\nIn modern media, it may be true that a women's body parts might be the most attractive thing *initially for a guy*, but its really more of an attention grabber. Once the movie/game starts, the personality of woman comes through. For example: Lara Croft in Tomb Raider (a character model who is heavily sexualized) had her personality and story changed part way through, and fans of the franchise were upset over it.\n\n2.) I don't get why women feel bad about objectification. If men were constantly showed as sex objects I don't think it would bother me. Heck, there are even jokes that \"men are dumb,\" or \"men have 0 emotional IQ\" and I just laugh at it. I feel like if I was seen as just a hunk of muscles that would be kinda awesome if anything. I also get the impression a lot of men would be okay with it too, based on the men I've met in my life. So, I don't understand why it seems only women have an issue with this.\n\n**What would change my view**\n\nI'd like to better understand why women feel bad about objectification, and learn if there is truth to their perceptions of their image regarding it.\n\n* Data/studies showing that men only see women as walking bags of meat.\n\n* Tell me why it doesn't feel good to be seen as a sexy creature. Is this just because men have a higher sex drive?\n\n* Maybe something else could change my view, such as pointing out a flaw in my reasoning. This was just what I could think of for this post.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* Men complain about being expected to be the breadwinner, which could point to just either human not understanding the feeling of being a situation they haven't experienced (ie: haven't experienced objectification so I don't know why it would feel bad)\n\n* If people claim your achievements are due to your looks that would be upsetting.\n\n* Historically, women had to put men as the face of their achievement, and to do that had to sleep with the man. This objectification is bad, because they don't get acknowledgement for their achievement and might sleep with someone they otherwise would not want to.\n\n* \"Being compared to things you buy and own as a woman feels shitty because this is how some men still see us -- as property.\" - and objectification can lead to being compared to things you buy.\n\n* Human qualities being diminished could be dangerous and lead to doing inhumane things to those people.\n\n* Honor killings, where women are killed due to bringing shame on the family for being to sexual.\n\n* There are men who treat women poorly with objectification and can be harmful, especially for younger women who might not know what a good relationship looks like.\n\n* [Study](https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/documents/s73942/Appendix%206%20-%20Journal%20Article.pdf) shows that seeing women as sexual objects leads to more sexual assault of women.",
"date": "2023-12-25",
"id": "18qs46r",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Objectification of women isn't as bad as they make it out to be",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18qs46r/cmv_objectification_of_women_isnt_as_bad_as_they/"
},
{
"author": "schwenomorph",
"body": "Would you enjoy being objectified by horns men who have no self control?",
"date": "2023-12-26",
"id": "kf2xszk",
"parent_id": "18qs46r",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "RedditExplorer89",
"body": "I hear this in discourse when women wear sexy clothing in movies or video games: that it objectifies women (and I assume the speaker thinks this is a bad thing). This is also usually accompanied with complaints that women are being seen as \"just\" sex objects, and that their other human qualities are being diminished. One women I've met said, \"I want to be seen as more than a bag of warm meat.\"\n\nOn a base level, I do think its bad if someone feels bad, and its clear women feel bad about objectification. In that sense, I'd agree objectification is bad. However, I think these perceptions of their image are distortions, and I don't understand *why* they feel so bad about it. I'll explain the reasoning why I have this view:\n\n1.) Perceptions of objectification are distortions of reality. No guy I've ever met sees women as \"walking vaginas\" or \"bags of warm meat.\" Yeah, sex might be the most attractive thing about a women for some guys, but even the guys trying to constantly get laid understand that they are dealing with a human being who has a brain and feelings. They court women, trying to appeal with intelligent conversation or being sensitive to her feelings (guys that don't do this quickly learn being a douche doesn't get you dates). If they really just wanted warm bags of meat they could much more easily buy meat from the butcher, heat it up in the oven, and play around with that. Or buy a sex doll. But men consistently choose to go after living, breathing women who have brains and opinions.\n\nIn modern media, it may be true that a women's body parts might be the most attractive thing *initially for a guy*, but its really more of an attention grabber. Once the movie/game starts, the personality of woman comes through. For example: Lara Croft in Tomb Raider (a character model who is heavily sexualized) had her personality and story changed part way through, and fans of the franchise were upset over it.\n\n2.) I don't get why women feel bad about objectification. If men were constantly showed as sex objects I don't think it would bother me. Heck, there are even jokes that \"men are dumb,\" or \"men have 0 emotional IQ\" and I just laugh at it. I feel like if I was seen as just a hunk of muscles that would be kinda awesome if anything. I also get the impression a lot of men would be okay with it too, based on the men I've met in my life. So, I don't understand why it seems only women have an issue with this.\n\n**What would change my view**\n\nI'd like to better understand why women feel bad about objectification, and learn if there is truth to their perceptions of their image regarding it.\n\n* Data/studies showing that men only see women as walking bags of meat.\n\n* Tell me why it doesn't feel good to be seen as a sexy creature. Is this just because men have a higher sex drive?\n\n* Maybe something else could change my view, such as pointing out a flaw in my reasoning. This was just what I could think of for this post.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* Men complain about being expected to be the breadwinner, which could point to just either human not understanding the feeling of being a situation they haven't experienced (ie: haven't experienced objectification so I don't know why it would feel bad)\n\n* If people claim your achievements are due to your looks that would be upsetting.\n\n* Historically, women had to put men as the face of their achievement, and to do that had to sleep with the man. This objectification is bad, because they don't get acknowledgement for their achievement and might sleep with someone they otherwise would not want to.\n\n* \"Being compared to things you buy and own as a woman feels shitty because this is how some men still see us -- as property.\" - and objectification can lead to being compared to things you buy.\n\n* Human qualities being diminished could be dangerous and lead to doing inhumane things to those people.\n\n* Honor killings, where women are killed due to bringing shame on the family for being to sexual.\n\n* There are men who treat women poorly with objectification and can be harmful, especially for younger women who might not know what a good relationship looks like.\n\n* [Study](https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/documents/s73942/Appendix%206%20-%20Journal%20Article.pdf) shows that seeing women as sexual objects leads to more sexual assault of women.",
"date": "2023-12-25",
"id": "18qs46r",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Objectification of women isn't as bad as they make it out to be",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18qs46r/cmv_objectification_of_women_isnt_as_bad_as_they/"
},
{
"author": "IAteTheWholeBanana",
"body": "> Data/studies showing that men only see women as walking bags of meat.\n\nI don't know if there are studies on this, probably, but I've never looked. I was 12 the first time and adult man made an aggressively sexual comment at me. Just about every woman I know has a similar experience. I was in middle school when men started commenting on my body. \n\nIt's not about data, its feelings. being treating like that doesn't feel good.",
"date": "2023-12-27",
"id": "kf5qqmp",
"parent_id": "18qs46r",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "RedditExplorer89",
"body": "I hear this in discourse when women wear sexy clothing in movies or video games: that it objectifies women (and I assume the speaker thinks this is a bad thing). This is also usually accompanied with complaints that women are being seen as \"just\" sex objects, and that their other human qualities are being diminished. One women I've met said, \"I want to be seen as more than a bag of warm meat.\"\n\nOn a base level, I do think its bad if someone feels bad, and its clear women feel bad about objectification. In that sense, I'd agree objectification is bad. However, I think these perceptions of their image are distortions, and I don't understand *why* they feel so bad about it. I'll explain the reasoning why I have this view:\n\n1.) Perceptions of objectification are distortions of reality. No guy I've ever met sees women as \"walking vaginas\" or \"bags of warm meat.\" Yeah, sex might be the most attractive thing about a women for some guys, but even the guys trying to constantly get laid understand that they are dealing with a human being who has a brain and feelings. They court women, trying to appeal with intelligent conversation or being sensitive to her feelings (guys that don't do this quickly learn being a douche doesn't get you dates). If they really just wanted warm bags of meat they could much more easily buy meat from the butcher, heat it up in the oven, and play around with that. Or buy a sex doll. But men consistently choose to go after living, breathing women who have brains and opinions.\n\nIn modern media, it may be true that a women's body parts might be the most attractive thing *initially for a guy*, but its really more of an attention grabber. Once the movie/game starts, the personality of woman comes through. For example: Lara Croft in Tomb Raider (a character model who is heavily sexualized) had her personality and story changed part way through, and fans of the franchise were upset over it.\n\n2.) I don't get why women feel bad about objectification. If men were constantly showed as sex objects I don't think it would bother me. Heck, there are even jokes that \"men are dumb,\" or \"men have 0 emotional IQ\" and I just laugh at it. I feel like if I was seen as just a hunk of muscles that would be kinda awesome if anything. I also get the impression a lot of men would be okay with it too, based on the men I've met in my life. So, I don't understand why it seems only women have an issue with this.\n\n**What would change my view**\n\nI'd like to better understand why women feel bad about objectification, and learn if there is truth to their perceptions of their image regarding it.\n\n* Data/studies showing that men only see women as walking bags of meat.\n\n* Tell me why it doesn't feel good to be seen as a sexy creature. Is this just because men have a higher sex drive?\n\n* Maybe something else could change my view, such as pointing out a flaw in my reasoning. This was just what I could think of for this post.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* Men complain about being expected to be the breadwinner, which could point to just either human not understanding the feeling of being a situation they haven't experienced (ie: haven't experienced objectification so I don't know why it would feel bad)\n\n* If people claim your achievements are due to your looks that would be upsetting.\n\n* Historically, women had to put men as the face of their achievement, and to do that had to sleep with the man. This objectification is bad, because they don't get acknowledgement for their achievement and might sleep with someone they otherwise would not want to.\n\n* \"Being compared to things you buy and own as a woman feels shitty because this is how some men still see us -- as property.\" - and objectification can lead to being compared to things you buy.\n\n* Human qualities being diminished could be dangerous and lead to doing inhumane things to those people.\n\n* Honor killings, where women are killed due to bringing shame on the family for being to sexual.\n\n* There are men who treat women poorly with objectification and can be harmful, especially for younger women who might not know what a good relationship looks like.\n\n* [Study](https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/documents/s73942/Appendix%206%20-%20Journal%20Article.pdf) shows that seeing women as sexual objects leads to more sexual assault of women.",
"date": "2023-12-25",
"id": "18qs46r",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Objectification of women isn't as bad as they make it out to be",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18qs46r/cmv_objectification_of_women_isnt_as_bad_as_they/"
},
{
"author": "pfundie",
"body": ">Yeah, sex might be the most attractive thing about a women for some guys, but even the guys trying to constantly get laid understand that they are dealing with a human being who has a brain and feelings.\n\nRight, but they don't actually care about the brain or feelings. They just have to deal with them to get sex.\n\n>They court women, trying to appeal with intelligent conversation or being sensitive to her feelings (guys that don't do this quickly learn being a douche doesn't get you dates).\n\nExactly the problem here. You see this as \"normal\" and unobjectionable, but what you're describing is a man manipulating a woman into having sex with him by pretending that he cares about who she is as a person. You're *not* describing a man who actually sees value and importance in that woman beyond her body. He's a bad person, who uses other people for his own selfish and hedonistic ends.\n\n>But men consistently choose to go after living, breathing women who have brains and opinions.\n\nYes, that is the problem. They are choosing to go after living, breathing women who have brains and opinions, whose brains and opinions they don't consider important or valuable except as something to leverage for sex. \n\n>I don't get why women feel bad about objectification. If men were constantly showed as sex objects I don't think it would bother me. Heck, there are even jokes that \"men are dumb,\" or \"men have 0 emotional IQ\" and I just laugh at it. I feel like if I was seen as just a hunk of muscles that would be kinda awesome if anything.\n\nYou laugh at it because otherwise you would have to think about it, and it's horrible. You don't see being seen as a hunk of muscles as a bad thing because that is held up as a masculine ideal and men are conditioned into being insecure about being seen as anything else. \n\n>So, I don't understand why it seems only women have an issue with this.\n\nI am a man, and I have an issue with both this as well as the way society generally sees men. They're the same thing, when you get down to it; a bunch of people treating each other like absolute shit for no better reason than that someone older than them told them to. Women want to be valued for their minds and their achievements in the only way that men are seen as valuable. Men want to be able to be seen as desirable and attractive in the way that is generally forced upon women as their dominant means of being valued, whether they want it or not. Thus, men fight a constant, unnecessary battle against a gaping void of masculine insecurity, and women never feel like their minds are seen as valuable or important. We don't actually have to accept this; we are *choosing* to hurt ourselves like this by maintaining these standards.\n\nThis is a difficult realization to make, but we (men) don't actually have to do the whole objectification thing. We are, in ways we don't really think about, constantly pushed towards it. We are even made to feel insecure about considering other qualities than physical attraction in our female partners; talking about women's bodies makes us feel masculine, like we're fitting in, and when we don't participate, we get accused of basically being a failure of a man in some capacity. A whole lot of men have lost interest in a woman after her appearance was disparaged by his friends, and that directly implies that a lot of this stuff *isn't* natural, but is instead something that we have collectively made up to hurt ourselves with. Similarly, men feel insecure about rejecting sex with a woman if she fits within feminine beauty standards, to the point that they feel like they have to justify not doing it.\n\nWe don't have to see women that way. I don't. It's a lot better; I'm actually less anxious because I can seriously be friends or acquaintances with a woman without feeling that constant pressure. I can see that it makes them a lot more comfortable around me as well, because they don't feel like they are either being rejected or pursued when they talk to me. The secret is that men largely objectify women because they are taught that a man who doesn't is failing at being a man, and will be seen as less by his peers.",
"date": "2023-12-27",
"id": "kf5vit8",
"parent_id": "18qs46r",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
]
]
| challenge |
[
{
"author": "RedditExplorer89",
"body": "I hear this in discourse when women wear sexy clothing in movies or video games: that it objectifies women (and I assume the speaker thinks this is a bad thing). This is also usually accompanied with complaints that women are being seen as \"just\" sex objects, and that their other human qualities are being diminished. One women I've met said, \"I want to be seen as more than a bag of warm meat.\"\n\nOn a base level, I do think its bad if someone feels bad, and its clear women feel bad about objectification. In that sense, I'd agree objectification is bad. However, I think these perceptions of their image are distortions, and I don't understand *why* they feel so bad about it. I'll explain the reasoning why I have this view:\n\n1.) Perceptions of objectification are distortions of reality. No guy I've ever met sees women as \"walking vaginas\" or \"bags of warm meat.\" Yeah, sex might be the most attractive thing about a women for some guys, but even the guys trying to constantly get laid understand that they are dealing with a human being who has a brain and feelings. They court women, trying to appeal with intelligent conversation or being sensitive to her feelings (guys that don't do this quickly learn being a douche doesn't get you dates). If they really just wanted warm bags of meat they could much more easily buy meat from the butcher, heat it up in the oven, and play around with that. Or buy a sex doll. But men consistently choose to go after living, breathing women who have brains and opinions.\n\nIn modern media, it may be true that a women's body parts might be the most attractive thing *initially for a guy*, but its really more of an attention grabber. Once the movie/game starts, the personality of woman comes through. For example: Lara Croft in Tomb Raider (a character model who is heavily sexualized) had her personality and story changed part way through, and fans of the franchise were upset over it.\n\n2.) I don't get why women feel bad about objectification. If men were constantly showed as sex objects I don't think it would bother me. Heck, there are even jokes that \"men are dumb,\" or \"men have 0 emotional IQ\" and I just laugh at it. I feel like if I was seen as just a hunk of muscles that would be kinda awesome if anything. I also get the impression a lot of men would be okay with it too, based on the men I've met in my life. So, I don't understand why it seems only women have an issue with this.\n\n**What would change my view**\n\nI'd like to better understand why women feel bad about objectification, and learn if there is truth to their perceptions of their image regarding it.\n\n* Data/studies showing that men only see women as walking bags of meat.\n\n* Tell me why it doesn't feel good to be seen as a sexy creature. Is this just because men have a higher sex drive?\n\n* Maybe something else could change my view, such as pointing out a flaw in my reasoning. This was just what I could think of for this post.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* Men complain about being expected to be the breadwinner, which could point to just either human not understanding the feeling of being a situation they haven't experienced (ie: haven't experienced objectification so I don't know why it would feel bad)\n\n* If people claim your achievements are due to your looks that would be upsetting.\n\n* Historically, women had to put men as the face of their achievement, and to do that had to sleep with the man. This objectification is bad, because they don't get acknowledgement for their achievement and might sleep with someone they otherwise would not want to.\n\n* \"Being compared to things you buy and own as a woman feels shitty because this is how some men still see us -- as property.\" - and objectification can lead to being compared to things you buy.\n\n* Human qualities being diminished could be dangerous and lead to doing inhumane things to those people.\n\n* Honor killings, where women are killed due to bringing shame on the family for being to sexual.\n\n* There are men who treat women poorly with objectification and can be harmful, especially for younger women who might not know what a good relationship looks like.\n\n* [Study](https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/documents/s73942/Appendix%206%20-%20Journal%20Article.pdf) shows that seeing women as sexual objects leads to more sexual assault of women.",
"date": "2023-12-25",
"id": "18qs46r",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Objectification of women isn't as bad as they make it out to be",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18qs46r/cmv_objectification_of_women_isnt_as_bad_as_they/"
},
{
"author": "LumpyExercise5079",
"body": ">Data/studies showing that men only see women as walking bags of meat.\n\nNot arguing that all men do, or even most. But enough men do that it poses a problem, and leads to assault. There was a study conducted comparing two groups: one exposed to sexualized portrayals of women, one not. Data about the ones exposed:\n\n>16.00% of men expressed at least modest agreement to the statement, \"A woman who is stuck up and thinks she is too good to talk to guys on the street deserves to be taught a lesson.\" \n> \n>9.60% agreed with \"Sometimes the only way a man can get a cold woman turned on is to use force\" \n> \n>52.40% agreed with \"When women go around braless or wearing short skirts and tight tops, they are just asking for trouble.\"\n\nExposure to porn made men 90% more likely to agree, reality TV made them 15% more likely. \n\nAnd agreeing meant an 87% increased likelihood of violence. \n\nThe data is clear. Sexualized media leads to vastly increased likelihoods of sexual assault, including but not limited to rape. \n\n([https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/documents/s73942/Appendix%206%20-%20Journal%20Article.pdf](https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/documents/s73942/Appendix%206%20-%20Journal%20Article.pdf)) -- it's peer reviewed",
"date": "2023-12-25",
"id": "kexupa5",
"parent_id": "18qs46r",
"score": 10,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "RedditExplorer89",
"body": "Excellent study! I got a little lost trying to understand what they did with the technical issue in obtaining responses, and why they kept referring to it as \"theoretical\" models, but I'll trust the conclusions drawn. !delta , objectification of women leads to more sexual assault of women.",
"date": "2023-12-25",
"id": "key84ik",
"parent_id": "kexupa5",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "DeltaBot",
"body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/LumpyExercise5079 ([2∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/LumpyExercise5079)).\n\n^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
"date": "2023-12-25",
"id": "key87z0",
"parent_id": "key84ik",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
]
| [
[
{
"author": "RedditExplorer89",
"body": "I hear this in discourse when women wear sexy clothing in movies or video games: that it objectifies women (and I assume the speaker thinks this is a bad thing). This is also usually accompanied with complaints that women are being seen as \"just\" sex objects, and that their other human qualities are being diminished. One women I've met said, \"I want to be seen as more than a bag of warm meat.\"\n\nOn a base level, I do think its bad if someone feels bad, and its clear women feel bad about objectification. In that sense, I'd agree objectification is bad. However, I think these perceptions of their image are distortions, and I don't understand *why* they feel so bad about it. I'll explain the reasoning why I have this view:\n\n1.) Perceptions of objectification are distortions of reality. No guy I've ever met sees women as \"walking vaginas\" or \"bags of warm meat.\" Yeah, sex might be the most attractive thing about a women for some guys, but even the guys trying to constantly get laid understand that they are dealing with a human being who has a brain and feelings. They court women, trying to appeal with intelligent conversation or being sensitive to her feelings (guys that don't do this quickly learn being a douche doesn't get you dates). If they really just wanted warm bags of meat they could much more easily buy meat from the butcher, heat it up in the oven, and play around with that. Or buy a sex doll. But men consistently choose to go after living, breathing women who have brains and opinions.\n\nIn modern media, it may be true that a women's body parts might be the most attractive thing *initially for a guy*, but its really more of an attention grabber. Once the movie/game starts, the personality of woman comes through. For example: Lara Croft in Tomb Raider (a character model who is heavily sexualized) had her personality and story changed part way through, and fans of the franchise were upset over it.\n\n2.) I don't get why women feel bad about objectification. If men were constantly showed as sex objects I don't think it would bother me. Heck, there are even jokes that \"men are dumb,\" or \"men have 0 emotional IQ\" and I just laugh at it. I feel like if I was seen as just a hunk of muscles that would be kinda awesome if anything. I also get the impression a lot of men would be okay with it too, based on the men I've met in my life. So, I don't understand why it seems only women have an issue with this.\n\n**What would change my view**\n\nI'd like to better understand why women feel bad about objectification, and learn if there is truth to their perceptions of their image regarding it.\n\n* Data/studies showing that men only see women as walking bags of meat.\n\n* Tell me why it doesn't feel good to be seen as a sexy creature. Is this just because men have a higher sex drive?\n\n* Maybe something else could change my view, such as pointing out a flaw in my reasoning. This was just what I could think of for this post.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* Men complain about being expected to be the breadwinner, which could point to just either human not understanding the feeling of being a situation they haven't experienced (ie: haven't experienced objectification so I don't know why it would feel bad)\n\n* If people claim your achievements are due to your looks that would be upsetting.\n\n* Historically, women had to put men as the face of their achievement, and to do that had to sleep with the man. This objectification is bad, because they don't get acknowledgement for their achievement and might sleep with someone they otherwise would not want to.\n\n* \"Being compared to things you buy and own as a woman feels shitty because this is how some men still see us -- as property.\" - and objectification can lead to being compared to things you buy.\n\n* Human qualities being diminished could be dangerous and lead to doing inhumane things to those people.\n\n* Honor killings, where women are killed due to bringing shame on the family for being to sexual.\n\n* There are men who treat women poorly with objectification and can be harmful, especially for younger women who might not know what a good relationship looks like.\n\n* [Study](https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/documents/s73942/Appendix%206%20-%20Journal%20Article.pdf) shows that seeing women as sexual objects leads to more sexual assault of women.",
"date": "2023-12-25",
"id": "18qs46r",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Objectification of women isn't as bad as they make it out to be",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18qs46r/cmv_objectification_of_women_isnt_as_bad_as_they/"
},
{
"author": "AnAlpacaIsJudgingYou",
"body": "Think about if the only thing society values about you was your sex appeal. Bot your personality, your skill, your achievements.",
"date": "2023-12-25",
"id": "kewtfma",
"parent_id": "18qs46r",
"score": 14,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "RedditExplorer89",
"body": "I guess I have a hard time imagining that because I don't see how society would not value my skill or achievements. If I did something great how would society not value that?",
"date": "2023-12-25",
"id": "kewvk8d",
"parent_id": "kewtfma",
"score": -6,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "RedditExplorer89",
"body": "I hear this in discourse when women wear sexy clothing in movies or video games: that it objectifies women (and I assume the speaker thinks this is a bad thing). This is also usually accompanied with complaints that women are being seen as \"just\" sex objects, and that their other human qualities are being diminished. One women I've met said, \"I want to be seen as more than a bag of warm meat.\"\n\nOn a base level, I do think its bad if someone feels bad, and its clear women feel bad about objectification. In that sense, I'd agree objectification is bad. However, I think these perceptions of their image are distortions, and I don't understand *why* they feel so bad about it. I'll explain the reasoning why I have this view:\n\n1.) Perceptions of objectification are distortions of reality. No guy I've ever met sees women as \"walking vaginas\" or \"bags of warm meat.\" Yeah, sex might be the most attractive thing about a women for some guys, but even the guys trying to constantly get laid understand that they are dealing with a human being who has a brain and feelings. They court women, trying to appeal with intelligent conversation or being sensitive to her feelings (guys that don't do this quickly learn being a douche doesn't get you dates). If they really just wanted warm bags of meat they could much more easily buy meat from the butcher, heat it up in the oven, and play around with that. Or buy a sex doll. But men consistently choose to go after living, breathing women who have brains and opinions.\n\nIn modern media, it may be true that a women's body parts might be the most attractive thing *initially for a guy*, but its really more of an attention grabber. Once the movie/game starts, the personality of woman comes through. For example: Lara Croft in Tomb Raider (a character model who is heavily sexualized) had her personality and story changed part way through, and fans of the franchise were upset over it.\n\n2.) I don't get why women feel bad about objectification. If men were constantly showed as sex objects I don't think it would bother me. Heck, there are even jokes that \"men are dumb,\" or \"men have 0 emotional IQ\" and I just laugh at it. I feel like if I was seen as just a hunk of muscles that would be kinda awesome if anything. I also get the impression a lot of men would be okay with it too, based on the men I've met in my life. So, I don't understand why it seems only women have an issue with this.\n\n**What would change my view**\n\nI'd like to better understand why women feel bad about objectification, and learn if there is truth to their perceptions of their image regarding it.\n\n* Data/studies showing that men only see women as walking bags of meat.\n\n* Tell me why it doesn't feel good to be seen as a sexy creature. Is this just because men have a higher sex drive?\n\n* Maybe something else could change my view, such as pointing out a flaw in my reasoning. This was just what I could think of for this post.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* Men complain about being expected to be the breadwinner, which could point to just either human not understanding the feeling of being a situation they haven't experienced (ie: haven't experienced objectification so I don't know why it would feel bad)\n\n* If people claim your achievements are due to your looks that would be upsetting.\n\n* Historically, women had to put men as the face of their achievement, and to do that had to sleep with the man. This objectification is bad, because they don't get acknowledgement for their achievement and might sleep with someone they otherwise would not want to.\n\n* \"Being compared to things you buy and own as a woman feels shitty because this is how some men still see us -- as property.\" - and objectification can lead to being compared to things you buy.\n\n* Human qualities being diminished could be dangerous and lead to doing inhumane things to those people.\n\n* Honor killings, where women are killed due to bringing shame on the family for being to sexual.\n\n* There are men who treat women poorly with objectification and can be harmful, especially for younger women who might not know what a good relationship looks like.\n\n* [Study](https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/documents/s73942/Appendix%206%20-%20Journal%20Article.pdf) shows that seeing women as sexual objects leads to more sexual assault of women.",
"date": "2023-12-25",
"id": "18qs46r",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Objectification of women isn't as bad as they make it out to be",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18qs46r/cmv_objectification_of_women_isnt_as_bad_as_they/"
},
{
"author": "Kazthespooky",
"body": "> I don't get why women feel bad about objectification. If men were constantly showed as sex objects I don't think it would bother me.\n\nDo you believe you would be upset if instead of your next pay raise, you were told you are pretty? Or if you were praised for your hard work with the comment, \"thank god OP was here with their pretty mouth\". Or if you were excluded from things because you would distract others. Or if we told your lifes story and all it said was, \"women enjoyed your pretty mouth\"\n\nYou aren't a human with thoughts, feelings or preferences when you are objectified. You are nothing except what others want to do with you.",
"date": "2023-12-25",
"id": "kewu9h4",
"parent_id": "18qs46r",
"score": 13,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Dramatic_Reality_531",
"body": "How does wearing makeup, high heels, and “sexy” clothes fit into wanting to not be objectified? If women didn’t want to be objectified, shouldn’t they, as a whole, avoid these things that cause objectification?\n\nOr is it a “survival of the fittest” situation where good ideals don’t matter and only who actually has the babies?",
"date": "2023-12-25",
"id": "kewuwyc",
"parent_id": "kewu9h4",
"score": -11,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "RedditExplorer89",
"body": "I hear this in discourse when women wear sexy clothing in movies or video games: that it objectifies women (and I assume the speaker thinks this is a bad thing). This is also usually accompanied with complaints that women are being seen as \"just\" sex objects, and that their other human qualities are being diminished. One women I've met said, \"I want to be seen as more than a bag of warm meat.\"\n\nOn a base level, I do think its bad if someone feels bad, and its clear women feel bad about objectification. In that sense, I'd agree objectification is bad. However, I think these perceptions of their image are distortions, and I don't understand *why* they feel so bad about it. I'll explain the reasoning why I have this view:\n\n1.) Perceptions of objectification are distortions of reality. No guy I've ever met sees women as \"walking vaginas\" or \"bags of warm meat.\" Yeah, sex might be the most attractive thing about a women for some guys, but even the guys trying to constantly get laid understand that they are dealing with a human being who has a brain and feelings. They court women, trying to appeal with intelligent conversation or being sensitive to her feelings (guys that don't do this quickly learn being a douche doesn't get you dates). If they really just wanted warm bags of meat they could much more easily buy meat from the butcher, heat it up in the oven, and play around with that. Or buy a sex doll. But men consistently choose to go after living, breathing women who have brains and opinions.\n\nIn modern media, it may be true that a women's body parts might be the most attractive thing *initially for a guy*, but its really more of an attention grabber. Once the movie/game starts, the personality of woman comes through. For example: Lara Croft in Tomb Raider (a character model who is heavily sexualized) had her personality and story changed part way through, and fans of the franchise were upset over it.\n\n2.) I don't get why women feel bad about objectification. If men were constantly showed as sex objects I don't think it would bother me. Heck, there are even jokes that \"men are dumb,\" or \"men have 0 emotional IQ\" and I just laugh at it. I feel like if I was seen as just a hunk of muscles that would be kinda awesome if anything. I also get the impression a lot of men would be okay with it too, based on the men I've met in my life. So, I don't understand why it seems only women have an issue with this.\n\n**What would change my view**\n\nI'd like to better understand why women feel bad about objectification, and learn if there is truth to their perceptions of their image regarding it.\n\n* Data/studies showing that men only see women as walking bags of meat.\n\n* Tell me why it doesn't feel good to be seen as a sexy creature. Is this just because men have a higher sex drive?\n\n* Maybe something else could change my view, such as pointing out a flaw in my reasoning. This was just what I could think of for this post.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* Men complain about being expected to be the breadwinner, which could point to just either human not understanding the feeling of being a situation they haven't experienced (ie: haven't experienced objectification so I don't know why it would feel bad)\n\n* If people claim your achievements are due to your looks that would be upsetting.\n\n* Historically, women had to put men as the face of their achievement, and to do that had to sleep with the man. This objectification is bad, because they don't get acknowledgement for their achievement and might sleep with someone they otherwise would not want to.\n\n* \"Being compared to things you buy and own as a woman feels shitty because this is how some men still see us -- as property.\" - and objectification can lead to being compared to things you buy.\n\n* Human qualities being diminished could be dangerous and lead to doing inhumane things to those people.\n\n* Honor killings, where women are killed due to bringing shame on the family for being to sexual.\n\n* There are men who treat women poorly with objectification and can be harmful, especially for younger women who might not know what a good relationship looks like.\n\n* [Study](https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/documents/s73942/Appendix%206%20-%20Journal%20Article.pdf) shows that seeing women as sexual objects leads to more sexual assault of women.",
"date": "2023-12-25",
"id": "18qs46r",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Objectification of women isn't as bad as they make it out to be",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18qs46r/cmv_objectification_of_women_isnt_as_bad_as_they/"
},
{
"author": "kikistiel",
"body": ">Data/studies showing that men only see women as walking bags of meat.\n\nIt isn't about how the men feel. It's about how the women feel. They feel like men don't respect them. No amount of \"data\" about how men feel about women make how it makes women feel any less valid. If they say they don't like it, that doesn't need men's input as to why.\n\n>Tell me why it doesn't feel good to be seen as a sexy creature. Is this just because men have a higher sex drive?\n\nBecause we aren't \"creatures\" dude. That's literally the whole point. Just yesterday on this very subreddit I saw someone say they don't want to sleep with women that aren't virgins because \"you would rather have a new car than a used one, right?\" That is exactly what objectification we are talking about. You don't get \"new\" and \"used\" women like from Amazon. As you said, women are people with brains. No one likes to have their entire complex lives reduced to a car sale.\n\n>Maybe something else could change my view, such as pointing out a flaw in my reasoning. This was just what I could think of for this post.\n\nWomen don't like it. If someone does something to someone else and they say hey I don't like that, it makes me feel like shit, please stop -- just stop doing it. I explained above why it hurts and why it makes me feel bad. A reasonable adult would say \"Oh, I see -- I won't do that anymore then.\" Instead of argue about why they should be allowed to do it anyways. Just don't do it.",
"date": "2023-12-25",
"id": "kewub75",
"parent_id": "18qs46r",
"score": 51,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "RedditExplorer89",
"body": "> If someone does something to someone else and they say hey I don't like that, it makes me feel like shit, please stop -- just stop doing it\n\nI agree as a first measure to the issue the easiest thing to do is for men to stop doing the thing that makes women not feel good. But for the long term, wouldn't it make more sense for women to try and see that things aren't as bad as they think? Like, if my sneezing makes you feel like you're being hit, the first thing I would do is stop sneezing. But, I would try to show you that I'm not hitting you.\n\n> Because we aren't \"creatures\" dude. \n\nWe are all creatures, aren't we? Maybe I have a different idea of what a creature is, because I think a creature is a lot more than a car.\n\n> they don't want to sleep with women that aren't virgins because \"you would rather have a new car than a used one, right?\"\n\nHmmm being compared to car is odd, I can almost see how that is hurtful. But, it doesn't seem that bad to me. Could you explain more on this?",
"date": "2023-12-25",
"id": "kewxug1",
"parent_id": "kewub75",
"score": -18,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "RedditExplorer89",
"body": "I hear this in discourse when women wear sexy clothing in movies or video games: that it objectifies women (and I assume the speaker thinks this is a bad thing). This is also usually accompanied with complaints that women are being seen as \"just\" sex objects, and that their other human qualities are being diminished. One women I've met said, \"I want to be seen as more than a bag of warm meat.\"\n\nOn a base level, I do think its bad if someone feels bad, and its clear women feel bad about objectification. In that sense, I'd agree objectification is bad. However, I think these perceptions of their image are distortions, and I don't understand *why* they feel so bad about it. I'll explain the reasoning why I have this view:\n\n1.) Perceptions of objectification are distortions of reality. No guy I've ever met sees women as \"walking vaginas\" or \"bags of warm meat.\" Yeah, sex might be the most attractive thing about a women for some guys, but even the guys trying to constantly get laid understand that they are dealing with a human being who has a brain and feelings. They court women, trying to appeal with intelligent conversation or being sensitive to her feelings (guys that don't do this quickly learn being a douche doesn't get you dates). If they really just wanted warm bags of meat they could much more easily buy meat from the butcher, heat it up in the oven, and play around with that. Or buy a sex doll. But men consistently choose to go after living, breathing women who have brains and opinions.\n\nIn modern media, it may be true that a women's body parts might be the most attractive thing *initially for a guy*, but its really more of an attention grabber. Once the movie/game starts, the personality of woman comes through. For example: Lara Croft in Tomb Raider (a character model who is heavily sexualized) had her personality and story changed part way through, and fans of the franchise were upset over it.\n\n2.) I don't get why women feel bad about objectification. If men were constantly showed as sex objects I don't think it would bother me. Heck, there are even jokes that \"men are dumb,\" or \"men have 0 emotional IQ\" and I just laugh at it. I feel like if I was seen as just a hunk of muscles that would be kinda awesome if anything. I also get the impression a lot of men would be okay with it too, based on the men I've met in my life. So, I don't understand why it seems only women have an issue with this.\n\n**What would change my view**\n\nI'd like to better understand why women feel bad about objectification, and learn if there is truth to their perceptions of their image regarding it.\n\n* Data/studies showing that men only see women as walking bags of meat.\n\n* Tell me why it doesn't feel good to be seen as a sexy creature. Is this just because men have a higher sex drive?\n\n* Maybe something else could change my view, such as pointing out a flaw in my reasoning. This was just what I could think of for this post.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* Men complain about being expected to be the breadwinner, which could point to just either human not understanding the feeling of being a situation they haven't experienced (ie: haven't experienced objectification so I don't know why it would feel bad)\n\n* If people claim your achievements are due to your looks that would be upsetting.\n\n* Historically, women had to put men as the face of their achievement, and to do that had to sleep with the man. This objectification is bad, because they don't get acknowledgement for their achievement and might sleep with someone they otherwise would not want to.\n\n* \"Being compared to things you buy and own as a woman feels shitty because this is how some men still see us -- as property.\" - and objectification can lead to being compared to things you buy.\n\n* Human qualities being diminished could be dangerous and lead to doing inhumane things to those people.\n\n* Honor killings, where women are killed due to bringing shame on the family for being to sexual.\n\n* There are men who treat women poorly with objectification and can be harmful, especially for younger women who might not know what a good relationship looks like.\n\n* [Study](https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/documents/s73942/Appendix%206%20-%20Journal%20Article.pdf) shows that seeing women as sexual objects leads to more sexual assault of women.",
"date": "2023-12-25",
"id": "18qs46r",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Objectification of women isn't as bad as they make it out to be",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18qs46r/cmv_objectification_of_women_isnt_as_bad_as_they/"
},
{
"author": "Hellioning",
"body": "I assure you, not every man 'courts women'. Not every man is 'sensitive to her feelings'. A great many men do not do these things.",
"date": "2023-12-25",
"id": "kewv0qb",
"parent_id": "18qs46r",
"score": 23,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "RedditExplorer89",
"body": "Sure, but those men aren't going to be successful with women, are they?\n\nOr are you saying more men are failing at this due to objectification?",
"date": "2023-12-25",
"id": "kewy0bu",
"parent_id": "kewv0qb",
"score": -2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "RedditExplorer89",
"body": "I hear this in discourse when women wear sexy clothing in movies or video games: that it objectifies women (and I assume the speaker thinks this is a bad thing). This is also usually accompanied with complaints that women are being seen as \"just\" sex objects, and that their other human qualities are being diminished. One women I've met said, \"I want to be seen as more than a bag of warm meat.\"\n\nOn a base level, I do think its bad if someone feels bad, and its clear women feel bad about objectification. In that sense, I'd agree objectification is bad. However, I think these perceptions of their image are distortions, and I don't understand *why* they feel so bad about it. I'll explain the reasoning why I have this view:\n\n1.) Perceptions of objectification are distortions of reality. No guy I've ever met sees women as \"walking vaginas\" or \"bags of warm meat.\" Yeah, sex might be the most attractive thing about a women for some guys, but even the guys trying to constantly get laid understand that they are dealing with a human being who has a brain and feelings. They court women, trying to appeal with intelligent conversation or being sensitive to her feelings (guys that don't do this quickly learn being a douche doesn't get you dates). If they really just wanted warm bags of meat they could much more easily buy meat from the butcher, heat it up in the oven, and play around with that. Or buy a sex doll. But men consistently choose to go after living, breathing women who have brains and opinions.\n\nIn modern media, it may be true that a women's body parts might be the most attractive thing *initially for a guy*, but its really more of an attention grabber. Once the movie/game starts, the personality of woman comes through. For example: Lara Croft in Tomb Raider (a character model who is heavily sexualized) had her personality and story changed part way through, and fans of the franchise were upset over it.\n\n2.) I don't get why women feel bad about objectification. If men were constantly showed as sex objects I don't think it would bother me. Heck, there are even jokes that \"men are dumb,\" or \"men have 0 emotional IQ\" and I just laugh at it. I feel like if I was seen as just a hunk of muscles that would be kinda awesome if anything. I also get the impression a lot of men would be okay with it too, based on the men I've met in my life. So, I don't understand why it seems only women have an issue with this.\n\n**What would change my view**\n\nI'd like to better understand why women feel bad about objectification, and learn if there is truth to their perceptions of their image regarding it.\n\n* Data/studies showing that men only see women as walking bags of meat.\n\n* Tell me why it doesn't feel good to be seen as a sexy creature. Is this just because men have a higher sex drive?\n\n* Maybe something else could change my view, such as pointing out a flaw in my reasoning. This was just what I could think of for this post.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* Men complain about being expected to be the breadwinner, which could point to just either human not understanding the feeling of being a situation they haven't experienced (ie: haven't experienced objectification so I don't know why it would feel bad)\n\n* If people claim your achievements are due to your looks that would be upsetting.\n\n* Historically, women had to put men as the face of their achievement, and to do that had to sleep with the man. This objectification is bad, because they don't get acknowledgement for their achievement and might sleep with someone they otherwise would not want to.\n\n* \"Being compared to things you buy and own as a woman feels shitty because this is how some men still see us -- as property.\" - and objectification can lead to being compared to things you buy.\n\n* Human qualities being diminished could be dangerous and lead to doing inhumane things to those people.\n\n* Honor killings, where women are killed due to bringing shame on the family for being to sexual.\n\n* There are men who treat women poorly with objectification and can be harmful, especially for younger women who might not know what a good relationship looks like.\n\n* [Study](https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/documents/s73942/Appendix%206%20-%20Journal%20Article.pdf) shows that seeing women as sexual objects leads to more sexual assault of women.",
"date": "2023-12-25",
"id": "18qs46r",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Objectification of women isn't as bad as they make it out to be",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18qs46r/cmv_objectification_of_women_isnt_as_bad_as_they/"
},
{
"author": "whatwhowherehow",
"body": "A lot of men see women as a lesser class of humans. This isn’t a speculation, you can scrutinize anything from art and literature to legislation and policy and it would lead you to that conclusion. It’s also important to interrogate your viewpoint by expanding how women are treated globally not only how you perceive women to be treated in your immediate vicinity. You have entire countries where women are second class (Afghanistan and Iran). Objectification may seem harmless in how you’ve described it but it’s a symptom of a greater problem. When you divorce someone from their full humanity and place so much value on their appearance you rob them of dignity. When so much emphasis is places on a woman’s appearance, it means that she has less value if she ages, if she is disabled, if she isn’t beautiful. Objectification in its essence is the opposite of humanization. Women are owed the dignity of their humanity just as equally as men do.",
"date": "2023-12-25",
"id": "kewvx3i",
"parent_id": "18qs46r",
"score": 20,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "RedditExplorer89",
"body": "> A lot of men see women as a lesser class of humans\n\nTrue. Objectification as a symptom of a greater problem, that could also be true. But then, is objectification really the problem? Or is the bigger issue of women not being seen as equals?",
"date": "2023-12-25",
"id": "kex0och",
"parent_id": "kewvx3i",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "RedditExplorer89",
"body": "I hear this in discourse when women wear sexy clothing in movies or video games: that it objectifies women (and I assume the speaker thinks this is a bad thing). This is also usually accompanied with complaints that women are being seen as \"just\" sex objects, and that their other human qualities are being diminished. One women I've met said, \"I want to be seen as more than a bag of warm meat.\"\n\nOn a base level, I do think its bad if someone feels bad, and its clear women feel bad about objectification. In that sense, I'd agree objectification is bad. However, I think these perceptions of their image are distortions, and I don't understand *why* they feel so bad about it. I'll explain the reasoning why I have this view:\n\n1.) Perceptions of objectification are distortions of reality. No guy I've ever met sees women as \"walking vaginas\" or \"bags of warm meat.\" Yeah, sex might be the most attractive thing about a women for some guys, but even the guys trying to constantly get laid understand that they are dealing with a human being who has a brain and feelings. They court women, trying to appeal with intelligent conversation or being sensitive to her feelings (guys that don't do this quickly learn being a douche doesn't get you dates). If they really just wanted warm bags of meat they could much more easily buy meat from the butcher, heat it up in the oven, and play around with that. Or buy a sex doll. But men consistently choose to go after living, breathing women who have brains and opinions.\n\nIn modern media, it may be true that a women's body parts might be the most attractive thing *initially for a guy*, but its really more of an attention grabber. Once the movie/game starts, the personality of woman comes through. For example: Lara Croft in Tomb Raider (a character model who is heavily sexualized) had her personality and story changed part way through, and fans of the franchise were upset over it.\n\n2.) I don't get why women feel bad about objectification. If men were constantly showed as sex objects I don't think it would bother me. Heck, there are even jokes that \"men are dumb,\" or \"men have 0 emotional IQ\" and I just laugh at it. I feel like if I was seen as just a hunk of muscles that would be kinda awesome if anything. I also get the impression a lot of men would be okay with it too, based on the men I've met in my life. So, I don't understand why it seems only women have an issue with this.\n\n**What would change my view**\n\nI'd like to better understand why women feel bad about objectification, and learn if there is truth to their perceptions of their image regarding it.\n\n* Data/studies showing that men only see women as walking bags of meat.\n\n* Tell me why it doesn't feel good to be seen as a sexy creature. Is this just because men have a higher sex drive?\n\n* Maybe something else could change my view, such as pointing out a flaw in my reasoning. This was just what I could think of for this post.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* Men complain about being expected to be the breadwinner, which could point to just either human not understanding the feeling of being a situation they haven't experienced (ie: haven't experienced objectification so I don't know why it would feel bad)\n\n* If people claim your achievements are due to your looks that would be upsetting.\n\n* Historically, women had to put men as the face of their achievement, and to do that had to sleep with the man. This objectification is bad, because they don't get acknowledgement for their achievement and might sleep with someone they otherwise would not want to.\n\n* \"Being compared to things you buy and own as a woman feels shitty because this is how some men still see us -- as property.\" - and objectification can lead to being compared to things you buy.\n\n* Human qualities being diminished could be dangerous and lead to doing inhumane things to those people.\n\n* Honor killings, where women are killed due to bringing shame on the family for being to sexual.\n\n* There are men who treat women poorly with objectification and can be harmful, especially for younger women who might not know what a good relationship looks like.\n\n* [Study](https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/documents/s73942/Appendix%206%20-%20Journal%20Article.pdf) shows that seeing women as sexual objects leads to more sexual assault of women.",
"date": "2023-12-25",
"id": "18qs46r",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Objectification of women isn't as bad as they make it out to be",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18qs46r/cmv_objectification_of_women_isnt_as_bad_as_they/"
},
{
"author": "Bobbob34",
"body": "> I don't understand why they feel so bad about it. \n\nWhoppee for you. Who cares?\n\nDo you think your feelings are some kind of universal arbiter of truth?\n\nWhy are some men so desperate to both make women uncomfortable and afraid and then try to shame them for it?\n\nhttps://www.thisamericanlife.org/603/transcript",
"date": "2023-12-25",
"id": "kewyjwa",
"parent_id": "18qs46r",
"score": 6,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "RedditExplorer89",
"body": "I hear this in discourse when women wear sexy clothing in movies or video games: that it objectifies women (and I assume the speaker thinks this is a bad thing). This is also usually accompanied with complaints that women are being seen as \"just\" sex objects, and that their other human qualities are being diminished. One women I've met said, \"I want to be seen as more than a bag of warm meat.\"\n\nOn a base level, I do think its bad if someone feels bad, and its clear women feel bad about objectification. In that sense, I'd agree objectification is bad. However, I think these perceptions of their image are distortions, and I don't understand *why* they feel so bad about it. I'll explain the reasoning why I have this view:\n\n1.) Perceptions of objectification are distortions of reality. No guy I've ever met sees women as \"walking vaginas\" or \"bags of warm meat.\" Yeah, sex might be the most attractive thing about a women for some guys, but even the guys trying to constantly get laid understand that they are dealing with a human being who has a brain and feelings. They court women, trying to appeal with intelligent conversation or being sensitive to her feelings (guys that don't do this quickly learn being a douche doesn't get you dates). If they really just wanted warm bags of meat they could much more easily buy meat from the butcher, heat it up in the oven, and play around with that. Or buy a sex doll. But men consistently choose to go after living, breathing women who have brains and opinions.\n\nIn modern media, it may be true that a women's body parts might be the most attractive thing *initially for a guy*, but its really more of an attention grabber. Once the movie/game starts, the personality of woman comes through. For example: Lara Croft in Tomb Raider (a character model who is heavily sexualized) had her personality and story changed part way through, and fans of the franchise were upset over it.\n\n2.) I don't get why women feel bad about objectification. If men were constantly showed as sex objects I don't think it would bother me. Heck, there are even jokes that \"men are dumb,\" or \"men have 0 emotional IQ\" and I just laugh at it. I feel like if I was seen as just a hunk of muscles that would be kinda awesome if anything. I also get the impression a lot of men would be okay with it too, based on the men I've met in my life. So, I don't understand why it seems only women have an issue with this.\n\n**What would change my view**\n\nI'd like to better understand why women feel bad about objectification, and learn if there is truth to their perceptions of their image regarding it.\n\n* Data/studies showing that men only see women as walking bags of meat.\n\n* Tell me why it doesn't feel good to be seen as a sexy creature. Is this just because men have a higher sex drive?\n\n* Maybe something else could change my view, such as pointing out a flaw in my reasoning. This was just what I could think of for this post.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* Men complain about being expected to be the breadwinner, which could point to just either human not understanding the feeling of being a situation they haven't experienced (ie: haven't experienced objectification so I don't know why it would feel bad)\n\n* If people claim your achievements are due to your looks that would be upsetting.\n\n* Historically, women had to put men as the face of their achievement, and to do that had to sleep with the man. This objectification is bad, because they don't get acknowledgement for their achievement and might sleep with someone they otherwise would not want to.\n\n* \"Being compared to things you buy and own as a woman feels shitty because this is how some men still see us -- as property.\" - and objectification can lead to being compared to things you buy.\n\n* Human qualities being diminished could be dangerous and lead to doing inhumane things to those people.\n\n* Honor killings, where women are killed due to bringing shame on the family for being to sexual.\n\n* There are men who treat women poorly with objectification and can be harmful, especially for younger women who might not know what a good relationship looks like.\n\n* [Study](https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/documents/s73942/Appendix%206%20-%20Journal%20Article.pdf) shows that seeing women as sexual objects leads to more sexual assault of women.",
"date": "2023-12-25",
"id": "18qs46r",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Objectification of women isn't as bad as they make it out to be",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18qs46r/cmv_objectification_of_women_isnt_as_bad_as_they/"
},
{
"author": "fifiinsidethebed",
"body": "> No guy I've ever met sees women as \"walking vaginas\" or \"bags of warm meat.\"\n\nAlthough your experience isn't invalid it also doesn't erase the experiences of many women sharing their struggles to be seen as a human by the men they meet.\n\n> If they really just wanted warm bags of meat they could much more easily buy meat from the butcher, heat it up in the oven, and play around with that. Or buy a sex doll.\n\nIf only that was easy as you presented. The men who see women as sex dolls are frequently exposed by women because they won't just buy a sex doll and leave them alone. You seem to forget the part where they also desire to control and own these women. These men are the stalkers, the persistent ex, the incels the women are complaining about. They have an obsession that sadly a simple doll cannot fulfill. \n\n\n> I don't get why women feel bad about objectification.\n\nPeople think objectification is just a word that twitter use here and there to sound smart and granted sometimes they use it for the wrong situation but it's still a serious issue. The way some men are taught to view women can lead to more dangerous consequences than women being an attention grabber in media. It goes from having your body being a public show when you just want to cross the street to being murdered because some guy thought that you belong to him. Hell, even your family can think they have ownership over your body (honory killing). Objectification is bad because it steals the agency that the woman has over her body to make everyone else her judge and sometimes her punisher. \n\n\n> Tell me why it doesn't feel good to be seen as a sexy creature\n\n\nHopefully, you will understand that the safety and well-being of women is a priority over being perceived as \"sexy creature\". Sexual objectification is the center, it's the start that can lead to grievance against women and as we all know can lead to some of the darkest crimes (abuse, murder, rape, sex trafficking, etc..)",
"date": "2023-12-25",
"id": "kex041i",
"parent_id": "18qs46r",
"score": 19,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "RedditExplorer89",
"body": "> Hopefully, you will understand that the safety and well-being of women is a priority over being perceived as \"sexy creature\"\n\nYes, I just don't see how safety and objectification go together yet.\n\n> ...being murdered because some guy thought that you belong to him.\n\nIsn't that type of obsession usually far beyond just wanting the body?\n\n> Hell, even your family can think they have ownership over your body (honory killing).\n\nThat sounds terrible, what is honory killing?",
"date": "2023-12-25",
"id": "kex4e0p",
"parent_id": "kex041i",
"score": -4,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "RedditExplorer89",
"body": "I hear this in discourse when women wear sexy clothing in movies or video games: that it objectifies women (and I assume the speaker thinks this is a bad thing). This is also usually accompanied with complaints that women are being seen as \"just\" sex objects, and that their other human qualities are being diminished. One women I've met said, \"I want to be seen as more than a bag of warm meat.\"\n\nOn a base level, I do think its bad if someone feels bad, and its clear women feel bad about objectification. In that sense, I'd agree objectification is bad. However, I think these perceptions of their image are distortions, and I don't understand *why* they feel so bad about it. I'll explain the reasoning why I have this view:\n\n1.) Perceptions of objectification are distortions of reality. No guy I've ever met sees women as \"walking vaginas\" or \"bags of warm meat.\" Yeah, sex might be the most attractive thing about a women for some guys, but even the guys trying to constantly get laid understand that they are dealing with a human being who has a brain and feelings. They court women, trying to appeal with intelligent conversation or being sensitive to her feelings (guys that don't do this quickly learn being a douche doesn't get you dates). If they really just wanted warm bags of meat they could much more easily buy meat from the butcher, heat it up in the oven, and play around with that. Or buy a sex doll. But men consistently choose to go after living, breathing women who have brains and opinions.\n\nIn modern media, it may be true that a women's body parts might be the most attractive thing *initially for a guy*, but its really more of an attention grabber. Once the movie/game starts, the personality of woman comes through. For example: Lara Croft in Tomb Raider (a character model who is heavily sexualized) had her personality and story changed part way through, and fans of the franchise were upset over it.\n\n2.) I don't get why women feel bad about objectification. If men were constantly showed as sex objects I don't think it would bother me. Heck, there are even jokes that \"men are dumb,\" or \"men have 0 emotional IQ\" and I just laugh at it. I feel like if I was seen as just a hunk of muscles that would be kinda awesome if anything. I also get the impression a lot of men would be okay with it too, based on the men I've met in my life. So, I don't understand why it seems only women have an issue with this.\n\n**What would change my view**\n\nI'd like to better understand why women feel bad about objectification, and learn if there is truth to their perceptions of their image regarding it.\n\n* Data/studies showing that men only see women as walking bags of meat.\n\n* Tell me why it doesn't feel good to be seen as a sexy creature. Is this just because men have a higher sex drive?\n\n* Maybe something else could change my view, such as pointing out a flaw in my reasoning. This was just what I could think of for this post.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* Men complain about being expected to be the breadwinner, which could point to just either human not understanding the feeling of being a situation they haven't experienced (ie: haven't experienced objectification so I don't know why it would feel bad)\n\n* If people claim your achievements are due to your looks that would be upsetting.\n\n* Historically, women had to put men as the face of their achievement, and to do that had to sleep with the man. This objectification is bad, because they don't get acknowledgement for their achievement and might sleep with someone they otherwise would not want to.\n\n* \"Being compared to things you buy and own as a woman feels shitty because this is how some men still see us -- as property.\" - and objectification can lead to being compared to things you buy.\n\n* Human qualities being diminished could be dangerous and lead to doing inhumane things to those people.\n\n* Honor killings, where women are killed due to bringing shame on the family for being to sexual.\n\n* There are men who treat women poorly with objectification and can be harmful, especially for younger women who might not know what a good relationship looks like.\n\n* [Study](https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/documents/s73942/Appendix%206%20-%20Journal%20Article.pdf) shows that seeing women as sexual objects leads to more sexual assault of women.",
"date": "2023-12-25",
"id": "18qs46r",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Objectification of women isn't as bad as they make it out to be",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18qs46r/cmv_objectification_of_women_isnt_as_bad_as_they/"
},
{
"author": "No_Scarcity8249",
"body": "Says a dude. The first issue here is that you don’t get to be in on the debate. Why do you even get to have an opinion on what’s good for someone else’s let alone hag the people on the planet? You aren’t the victim. It doesn’t affect you negatively.",
"date": "2023-12-25",
"id": "kex1jjo",
"parent_id": "18qs46r",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "RedditExplorer89",
"body": " I would assume women would rather me empathize with them on this issue rather than have no opinion. I guess if I see more negativity in the world that could be a downside, but its just something I've heard of from women so its something I would like to be more aware of.",
"date": "2023-12-25",
"id": "kex4ocp",
"parent_id": "kex1jjo",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "RedditExplorer89",
"body": "I hear this in discourse when women wear sexy clothing in movies or video games: that it objectifies women (and I assume the speaker thinks this is a bad thing). This is also usually accompanied with complaints that women are being seen as \"just\" sex objects, and that their other human qualities are being diminished. One women I've met said, \"I want to be seen as more than a bag of warm meat.\"\n\nOn a base level, I do think its bad if someone feels bad, and its clear women feel bad about objectification. In that sense, I'd agree objectification is bad. However, I think these perceptions of their image are distortions, and I don't understand *why* they feel so bad about it. I'll explain the reasoning why I have this view:\n\n1.) Perceptions of objectification are distortions of reality. No guy I've ever met sees women as \"walking vaginas\" or \"bags of warm meat.\" Yeah, sex might be the most attractive thing about a women for some guys, but even the guys trying to constantly get laid understand that they are dealing with a human being who has a brain and feelings. They court women, trying to appeal with intelligent conversation or being sensitive to her feelings (guys that don't do this quickly learn being a douche doesn't get you dates). If they really just wanted warm bags of meat they could much more easily buy meat from the butcher, heat it up in the oven, and play around with that. Or buy a sex doll. But men consistently choose to go after living, breathing women who have brains and opinions.\n\nIn modern media, it may be true that a women's body parts might be the most attractive thing *initially for a guy*, but its really more of an attention grabber. Once the movie/game starts, the personality of woman comes through. For example: Lara Croft in Tomb Raider (a character model who is heavily sexualized) had her personality and story changed part way through, and fans of the franchise were upset over it.\n\n2.) I don't get why women feel bad about objectification. If men were constantly showed as sex objects I don't think it would bother me. Heck, there are even jokes that \"men are dumb,\" or \"men have 0 emotional IQ\" and I just laugh at it. I feel like if I was seen as just a hunk of muscles that would be kinda awesome if anything. I also get the impression a lot of men would be okay with it too, based on the men I've met in my life. So, I don't understand why it seems only women have an issue with this.\n\n**What would change my view**\n\nI'd like to better understand why women feel bad about objectification, and learn if there is truth to their perceptions of their image regarding it.\n\n* Data/studies showing that men only see women as walking bags of meat.\n\n* Tell me why it doesn't feel good to be seen as a sexy creature. Is this just because men have a higher sex drive?\n\n* Maybe something else could change my view, such as pointing out a flaw in my reasoning. This was just what I could think of for this post.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* Men complain about being expected to be the breadwinner, which could point to just either human not understanding the feeling of being a situation they haven't experienced (ie: haven't experienced objectification so I don't know why it would feel bad)\n\n* If people claim your achievements are due to your looks that would be upsetting.\n\n* Historically, women had to put men as the face of their achievement, and to do that had to sleep with the man. This objectification is bad, because they don't get acknowledgement for their achievement and might sleep with someone they otherwise would not want to.\n\n* \"Being compared to things you buy and own as a woman feels shitty because this is how some men still see us -- as property.\" - and objectification can lead to being compared to things you buy.\n\n* Human qualities being diminished could be dangerous and lead to doing inhumane things to those people.\n\n* Honor killings, where women are killed due to bringing shame on the family for being to sexual.\n\n* There are men who treat women poorly with objectification and can be harmful, especially for younger women who might not know what a good relationship looks like.\n\n* [Study](https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/documents/s73942/Appendix%206%20-%20Journal%20Article.pdf) shows that seeing women as sexual objects leads to more sexual assault of women.",
"date": "2023-12-25",
"id": "18qs46r",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Objectification of women isn't as bad as they make it out to be",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18qs46r/cmv_objectification_of_women_isnt_as_bad_as_they/"
},
{
"author": "bfduinxdjnkydd",
"body": "It doesn’t feel good to be seen as a “sexy creature” because I’m not a creature and I probably don’t want to fuck you. I’m a human being and it doesn’t mean anything to me if I’m sexy or not. I know you don’t mean anything by your use of the word “creature” here, but here’s a thought exercise: can you think of a situation where you would describe another man as a “creature”, in a positive way where you view him as an equal?\n\nIt’s not flattering to be seen as sexy by a random man. If anything it just makes me feel wary of them, because I have to second guess everything they say or do towards me, because I can’t be sure if it’s genuine or they’re just trying to fuck me. It causes me anxiety, because I have to be very careful in how I interact with them in this situation, because I don’t want to inadvertently give them the impression that I’m interested by being too “nice” or too polite. \n\nThats why objectification feels bad, to me.",
"date": "2023-12-25",
"id": "kex5aoj",
"parent_id": "18qs46r",
"score": 4,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "RedditExplorer89",
"body": "I hear this in discourse when women wear sexy clothing in movies or video games: that it objectifies women (and I assume the speaker thinks this is a bad thing). This is also usually accompanied with complaints that women are being seen as \"just\" sex objects, and that their other human qualities are being diminished. One women I've met said, \"I want to be seen as more than a bag of warm meat.\"\n\nOn a base level, I do think its bad if someone feels bad, and its clear women feel bad about objectification. In that sense, I'd agree objectification is bad. However, I think these perceptions of their image are distortions, and I don't understand *why* they feel so bad about it. I'll explain the reasoning why I have this view:\n\n1.) Perceptions of objectification are distortions of reality. No guy I've ever met sees women as \"walking vaginas\" or \"bags of warm meat.\" Yeah, sex might be the most attractive thing about a women for some guys, but even the guys trying to constantly get laid understand that they are dealing with a human being who has a brain and feelings. They court women, trying to appeal with intelligent conversation or being sensitive to her feelings (guys that don't do this quickly learn being a douche doesn't get you dates). If they really just wanted warm bags of meat they could much more easily buy meat from the butcher, heat it up in the oven, and play around with that. Or buy a sex doll. But men consistently choose to go after living, breathing women who have brains and opinions.\n\nIn modern media, it may be true that a women's body parts might be the most attractive thing *initially for a guy*, but its really more of an attention grabber. Once the movie/game starts, the personality of woman comes through. For example: Lara Croft in Tomb Raider (a character model who is heavily sexualized) had her personality and story changed part way through, and fans of the franchise were upset over it.\n\n2.) I don't get why women feel bad about objectification. If men were constantly showed as sex objects I don't think it would bother me. Heck, there are even jokes that \"men are dumb,\" or \"men have 0 emotional IQ\" and I just laugh at it. I feel like if I was seen as just a hunk of muscles that would be kinda awesome if anything. I also get the impression a lot of men would be okay with it too, based on the men I've met in my life. So, I don't understand why it seems only women have an issue with this.\n\n**What would change my view**\n\nI'd like to better understand why women feel bad about objectification, and learn if there is truth to their perceptions of their image regarding it.\n\n* Data/studies showing that men only see women as walking bags of meat.\n\n* Tell me why it doesn't feel good to be seen as a sexy creature. Is this just because men have a higher sex drive?\n\n* Maybe something else could change my view, such as pointing out a flaw in my reasoning. This was just what I could think of for this post.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* Men complain about being expected to be the breadwinner, which could point to just either human not understanding the feeling of being a situation they haven't experienced (ie: haven't experienced objectification so I don't know why it would feel bad)\n\n* If people claim your achievements are due to your looks that would be upsetting.\n\n* Historically, women had to put men as the face of their achievement, and to do that had to sleep with the man. This objectification is bad, because they don't get acknowledgement for their achievement and might sleep with someone they otherwise would not want to.\n\n* \"Being compared to things you buy and own as a woman feels shitty because this is how some men still see us -- as property.\" - and objectification can lead to being compared to things you buy.\n\n* Human qualities being diminished could be dangerous and lead to doing inhumane things to those people.\n\n* Honor killings, where women are killed due to bringing shame on the family for being to sexual.\n\n* There are men who treat women poorly with objectification and can be harmful, especially for younger women who might not know what a good relationship looks like.\n\n* [Study](https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/documents/s73942/Appendix%206%20-%20Journal%20Article.pdf) shows that seeing women as sexual objects leads to more sexual assault of women.",
"date": "2023-12-25",
"id": "18qs46r",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Objectification of women isn't as bad as they make it out to be",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18qs46r/cmv_objectification_of_women_isnt_as_bad_as_they/"
},
{
"author": "Enni2S",
"body": "The interesting thing is that with your opening post, you are kind of already showing what the issue is. You are doing a hell of a lot of objectification when describing women purely in terms of their value to men. It's not just about women being seen purely as sex objects (though that is a large part of it), but being seen as objects *in general*. \n\nYou talk about how guys might initially be only interested in looks, but later they'll see personality etc. This is still about a woman's value to men, instead of about women as people. Your whole post is about what makes a woman attractive to you and other men, because that's where her 'value' is in this argument, and it becomes their only value. Sexualisation of men simply doesn't work the same way (by and large). I have no problem with sexualisation, but I do with objectification. It is not the same thing. \n\nImagine if you worked hard, wrote a book, ran 20 miles for charity etc, but *all* that mattered to people was how attractive you were to them. That's how men talk about women, that's how women are treated in society. It sucks.",
"date": "2023-12-25",
"id": "kex5rbh",
"parent_id": "18qs46r",
"score": 15,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "RedditExplorer89",
"body": "I hear this in discourse when women wear sexy clothing in movies or video games: that it objectifies women (and I assume the speaker thinks this is a bad thing). This is also usually accompanied with complaints that women are being seen as \"just\" sex objects, and that their other human qualities are being diminished. One women I've met said, \"I want to be seen as more than a bag of warm meat.\"\n\nOn a base level, I do think its bad if someone feels bad, and its clear women feel bad about objectification. In that sense, I'd agree objectification is bad. However, I think these perceptions of their image are distortions, and I don't understand *why* they feel so bad about it. I'll explain the reasoning why I have this view:\n\n1.) Perceptions of objectification are distortions of reality. No guy I've ever met sees women as \"walking vaginas\" or \"bags of warm meat.\" Yeah, sex might be the most attractive thing about a women for some guys, but even the guys trying to constantly get laid understand that they are dealing with a human being who has a brain and feelings. They court women, trying to appeal with intelligent conversation or being sensitive to her feelings (guys that don't do this quickly learn being a douche doesn't get you dates). If they really just wanted warm bags of meat they could much more easily buy meat from the butcher, heat it up in the oven, and play around with that. Or buy a sex doll. But men consistently choose to go after living, breathing women who have brains and opinions.\n\nIn modern media, it may be true that a women's body parts might be the most attractive thing *initially for a guy*, but its really more of an attention grabber. Once the movie/game starts, the personality of woman comes through. For example: Lara Croft in Tomb Raider (a character model who is heavily sexualized) had her personality and story changed part way through, and fans of the franchise were upset over it.\n\n2.) I don't get why women feel bad about objectification. If men were constantly showed as sex objects I don't think it would bother me. Heck, there are even jokes that \"men are dumb,\" or \"men have 0 emotional IQ\" and I just laugh at it. I feel like if I was seen as just a hunk of muscles that would be kinda awesome if anything. I also get the impression a lot of men would be okay with it too, based on the men I've met in my life. So, I don't understand why it seems only women have an issue with this.\n\n**What would change my view**\n\nI'd like to better understand why women feel bad about objectification, and learn if there is truth to their perceptions of their image regarding it.\n\n* Data/studies showing that men only see women as walking bags of meat.\n\n* Tell me why it doesn't feel good to be seen as a sexy creature. Is this just because men have a higher sex drive?\n\n* Maybe something else could change my view, such as pointing out a flaw in my reasoning. This was just what I could think of for this post.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* Men complain about being expected to be the breadwinner, which could point to just either human not understanding the feeling of being a situation they haven't experienced (ie: haven't experienced objectification so I don't know why it would feel bad)\n\n* If people claim your achievements are due to your looks that would be upsetting.\n\n* Historically, women had to put men as the face of their achievement, and to do that had to sleep with the man. This objectification is bad, because they don't get acknowledgement for their achievement and might sleep with someone they otherwise would not want to.\n\n* \"Being compared to things you buy and own as a woman feels shitty because this is how some men still see us -- as property.\" - and objectification can lead to being compared to things you buy.\n\n* Human qualities being diminished could be dangerous and lead to doing inhumane things to those people.\n\n* Honor killings, where women are killed due to bringing shame on the family for being to sexual.\n\n* There are men who treat women poorly with objectification and can be harmful, especially for younger women who might not know what a good relationship looks like.\n\n* [Study](https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/documents/s73942/Appendix%206%20-%20Journal%20Article.pdf) shows that seeing women as sexual objects leads to more sexual assault of women.",
"date": "2023-12-25",
"id": "18qs46r",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Objectification of women isn't as bad as they make it out to be",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18qs46r/cmv_objectification_of_women_isnt_as_bad_as_they/"
},
{
"author": "Flat_Satisfaction918",
"body": ">Perceptions of objectification are distortions of reality. No guy I've ever met sees women as \"walking vaginas\" or \"bags of warm meat.\"\n\nYou said that because you never see one, and that's doesn't mean it's don't exist.",
"date": "2023-12-25",
"id": "kexw88i",
"parent_id": "18qs46r",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Flat_Satisfaction918",
"body": "> I don't get why women feel bad about objectification. If men were constantly showed as sex objects I don't think it would bother me. Heck, there are even jokes that \"men are dumb,\" or \"men have 0 emotional IQ\" and I just laugh at it.\n\nYou don't have problems with it doesn't mean other will feel the same way as you. The idea of 'I don't have problems with it, why do they have to overreacting?' Is sounds really self-centred to use your feelings as standards.",
"date": "2023-12-25",
"id": "kexwyit",
"parent_id": "kexw88i",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "RedditExplorer89",
"body": "I hear this in discourse when women wear sexy clothing in movies or video games: that it objectifies women (and I assume the speaker thinks this is a bad thing). This is also usually accompanied with complaints that women are being seen as \"just\" sex objects, and that their other human qualities are being diminished. One women I've met said, \"I want to be seen as more than a bag of warm meat.\"\n\nOn a base level, I do think its bad if someone feels bad, and its clear women feel bad about objectification. In that sense, I'd agree objectification is bad. However, I think these perceptions of their image are distortions, and I don't understand *why* they feel so bad about it. I'll explain the reasoning why I have this view:\n\n1.) Perceptions of objectification are distortions of reality. No guy I've ever met sees women as \"walking vaginas\" or \"bags of warm meat.\" Yeah, sex might be the most attractive thing about a women for some guys, but even the guys trying to constantly get laid understand that they are dealing with a human being who has a brain and feelings. They court women, trying to appeal with intelligent conversation or being sensitive to her feelings (guys that don't do this quickly learn being a douche doesn't get you dates). If they really just wanted warm bags of meat they could much more easily buy meat from the butcher, heat it up in the oven, and play around with that. Or buy a sex doll. But men consistently choose to go after living, breathing women who have brains and opinions.\n\nIn modern media, it may be true that a women's body parts might be the most attractive thing *initially for a guy*, but its really more of an attention grabber. Once the movie/game starts, the personality of woman comes through. For example: Lara Croft in Tomb Raider (a character model who is heavily sexualized) had her personality and story changed part way through, and fans of the franchise were upset over it.\n\n2.) I don't get why women feel bad about objectification. If men were constantly showed as sex objects I don't think it would bother me. Heck, there are even jokes that \"men are dumb,\" or \"men have 0 emotional IQ\" and I just laugh at it. I feel like if I was seen as just a hunk of muscles that would be kinda awesome if anything. I also get the impression a lot of men would be okay with it too, based on the men I've met in my life. So, I don't understand why it seems only women have an issue with this.\n\n**What would change my view**\n\nI'd like to better understand why women feel bad about objectification, and learn if there is truth to their perceptions of their image regarding it.\n\n* Data/studies showing that men only see women as walking bags of meat.\n\n* Tell me why it doesn't feel good to be seen as a sexy creature. Is this just because men have a higher sex drive?\n\n* Maybe something else could change my view, such as pointing out a flaw in my reasoning. This was just what I could think of for this post.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* Men complain about being expected to be the breadwinner, which could point to just either human not understanding the feeling of being a situation they haven't experienced (ie: haven't experienced objectification so I don't know why it would feel bad)\n\n* If people claim your achievements are due to your looks that would be upsetting.\n\n* Historically, women had to put men as the face of their achievement, and to do that had to sleep with the man. This objectification is bad, because they don't get acknowledgement for their achievement and might sleep with someone they otherwise would not want to.\n\n* \"Being compared to things you buy and own as a woman feels shitty because this is how some men still see us -- as property.\" - and objectification can lead to being compared to things you buy.\n\n* Human qualities being diminished could be dangerous and lead to doing inhumane things to those people.\n\n* Honor killings, where women are killed due to bringing shame on the family for being to sexual.\n\n* There are men who treat women poorly with objectification and can be harmful, especially for younger women who might not know what a good relationship looks like.\n\n* [Study](https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/documents/s73942/Appendix%206%20-%20Journal%20Article.pdf) shows that seeing women as sexual objects leads to more sexual assault of women.",
"date": "2023-12-25",
"id": "18qs46r",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Objectification of women isn't as bad as they make it out to be",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18qs46r/cmv_objectification_of_women_isnt_as_bad_as_they/"
},
{
"author": "1Goldlady2",
"body": "You haven't met a guy I actually met who told me his ideal sexual preference would be if he didn't have to deal with women at all. His ideal preference, he said, would just be a wall of vaginas nailed to a wall that he could use as he pleased. Some men objectify women to a point that no human being should or would be willing to tolerate.",
"date": "2023-12-25",
"id": "kexzz63",
"parent_id": "18qs46r",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "RedditExplorer89",
"body": "I hear this in discourse when women wear sexy clothing in movies or video games: that it objectifies women (and I assume the speaker thinks this is a bad thing). This is also usually accompanied with complaints that women are being seen as \"just\" sex objects, and that their other human qualities are being diminished. One women I've met said, \"I want to be seen as more than a bag of warm meat.\"\n\nOn a base level, I do think its bad if someone feels bad, and its clear women feel bad about objectification. In that sense, I'd agree objectification is bad. However, I think these perceptions of their image are distortions, and I don't understand *why* they feel so bad about it. I'll explain the reasoning why I have this view:\n\n1.) Perceptions of objectification are distortions of reality. No guy I've ever met sees women as \"walking vaginas\" or \"bags of warm meat.\" Yeah, sex might be the most attractive thing about a women for some guys, but even the guys trying to constantly get laid understand that they are dealing with a human being who has a brain and feelings. They court women, trying to appeal with intelligent conversation or being sensitive to her feelings (guys that don't do this quickly learn being a douche doesn't get you dates). If they really just wanted warm bags of meat they could much more easily buy meat from the butcher, heat it up in the oven, and play around with that. Or buy a sex doll. But men consistently choose to go after living, breathing women who have brains and opinions.\n\nIn modern media, it may be true that a women's body parts might be the most attractive thing *initially for a guy*, but its really more of an attention grabber. Once the movie/game starts, the personality of woman comes through. For example: Lara Croft in Tomb Raider (a character model who is heavily sexualized) had her personality and story changed part way through, and fans of the franchise were upset over it.\n\n2.) I don't get why women feel bad about objectification. If men were constantly showed as sex objects I don't think it would bother me. Heck, there are even jokes that \"men are dumb,\" or \"men have 0 emotional IQ\" and I just laugh at it. I feel like if I was seen as just a hunk of muscles that would be kinda awesome if anything. I also get the impression a lot of men would be okay with it too, based on the men I've met in my life. So, I don't understand why it seems only women have an issue with this.\n\n**What would change my view**\n\nI'd like to better understand why women feel bad about objectification, and learn if there is truth to their perceptions of their image regarding it.\n\n* Data/studies showing that men only see women as walking bags of meat.\n\n* Tell me why it doesn't feel good to be seen as a sexy creature. Is this just because men have a higher sex drive?\n\n* Maybe something else could change my view, such as pointing out a flaw in my reasoning. This was just what I could think of for this post.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* Men complain about being expected to be the breadwinner, which could point to just either human not understanding the feeling of being a situation they haven't experienced (ie: haven't experienced objectification so I don't know why it would feel bad)\n\n* If people claim your achievements are due to your looks that would be upsetting.\n\n* Historically, women had to put men as the face of their achievement, and to do that had to sleep with the man. This objectification is bad, because they don't get acknowledgement for their achievement and might sleep with someone they otherwise would not want to.\n\n* \"Being compared to things you buy and own as a woman feels shitty because this is how some men still see us -- as property.\" - and objectification can lead to being compared to things you buy.\n\n* Human qualities being diminished could be dangerous and lead to doing inhumane things to those people.\n\n* Honor killings, where women are killed due to bringing shame on the family for being to sexual.\n\n* There are men who treat women poorly with objectification and can be harmful, especially for younger women who might not know what a good relationship looks like.\n\n* [Study](https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/documents/s73942/Appendix%206%20-%20Journal%20Article.pdf) shows that seeing women as sexual objects leads to more sexual assault of women.",
"date": "2023-12-25",
"id": "18qs46r",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Objectification of women isn't as bad as they make it out to be",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18qs46r/cmv_objectification_of_women_isnt_as_bad_as_they/"
},
{
"author": "666throwawaytrash",
"body": "I could step toe to toe with the men at my company because they were my mentors and I was still demeaned for being a woman. They fetishized me when I just wanted respect. I live as a recluse to avoid interacting with guys in general because I've gone through child abuse and the cycle continues.",
"date": "2023-12-25",
"id": "key2hxm",
"parent_id": "18qs46r",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "RedditExplorer89",
"body": "I'm sorry to hear that. Do you think there is anything men could do to make up for that bad experience in your life? Being pushed out of society because of the opposite gender sounds rough.",
"date": "2023-12-26",
"id": "kezf1i4",
"parent_id": "key2hxm",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "RedditExplorer89",
"body": "I hear this in discourse when women wear sexy clothing in movies or video games: that it objectifies women (and I assume the speaker thinks this is a bad thing). This is also usually accompanied with complaints that women are being seen as \"just\" sex objects, and that their other human qualities are being diminished. One women I've met said, \"I want to be seen as more than a bag of warm meat.\"\n\nOn a base level, I do think its bad if someone feels bad, and its clear women feel bad about objectification. In that sense, I'd agree objectification is bad. However, I think these perceptions of their image are distortions, and I don't understand *why* they feel so bad about it. I'll explain the reasoning why I have this view:\n\n1.) Perceptions of objectification are distortions of reality. No guy I've ever met sees women as \"walking vaginas\" or \"bags of warm meat.\" Yeah, sex might be the most attractive thing about a women for some guys, but even the guys trying to constantly get laid understand that they are dealing with a human being who has a brain and feelings. They court women, trying to appeal with intelligent conversation or being sensitive to her feelings (guys that don't do this quickly learn being a douche doesn't get you dates). If they really just wanted warm bags of meat they could much more easily buy meat from the butcher, heat it up in the oven, and play around with that. Or buy a sex doll. But men consistently choose to go after living, breathing women who have brains and opinions.\n\nIn modern media, it may be true that a women's body parts might be the most attractive thing *initially for a guy*, but its really more of an attention grabber. Once the movie/game starts, the personality of woman comes through. For example: Lara Croft in Tomb Raider (a character model who is heavily sexualized) had her personality and story changed part way through, and fans of the franchise were upset over it.\n\n2.) I don't get why women feel bad about objectification. If men were constantly showed as sex objects I don't think it would bother me. Heck, there are even jokes that \"men are dumb,\" or \"men have 0 emotional IQ\" and I just laugh at it. I feel like if I was seen as just a hunk of muscles that would be kinda awesome if anything. I also get the impression a lot of men would be okay with it too, based on the men I've met in my life. So, I don't understand why it seems only women have an issue with this.\n\n**What would change my view**\n\nI'd like to better understand why women feel bad about objectification, and learn if there is truth to their perceptions of their image regarding it.\n\n* Data/studies showing that men only see women as walking bags of meat.\n\n* Tell me why it doesn't feel good to be seen as a sexy creature. Is this just because men have a higher sex drive?\n\n* Maybe something else could change my view, such as pointing out a flaw in my reasoning. This was just what I could think of for this post.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* Men complain about being expected to be the breadwinner, which could point to just either human not understanding the feeling of being a situation they haven't experienced (ie: haven't experienced objectification so I don't know why it would feel bad)\n\n* If people claim your achievements are due to your looks that would be upsetting.\n\n* Historically, women had to put men as the face of their achievement, and to do that had to sleep with the man. This objectification is bad, because they don't get acknowledgement for their achievement and might sleep with someone they otherwise would not want to.\n\n* \"Being compared to things you buy and own as a woman feels shitty because this is how some men still see us -- as property.\" - and objectification can lead to being compared to things you buy.\n\n* Human qualities being diminished could be dangerous and lead to doing inhumane things to those people.\n\n* Honor killings, where women are killed due to bringing shame on the family for being to sexual.\n\n* There are men who treat women poorly with objectification and can be harmful, especially for younger women who might not know what a good relationship looks like.\n\n* [Study](https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/documents/s73942/Appendix%206%20-%20Journal%20Article.pdf) shows that seeing women as sexual objects leads to more sexual assault of women.",
"date": "2023-12-25",
"id": "18qs46r",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Objectification of women isn't as bad as they make it out to be",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18qs46r/cmv_objectification_of_women_isnt_as_bad_as_they/"
},
{
"author": "luuls_",
"body": "Start by reading some radical feminism. Not because they’re right but because it will get you a free pass onto women’s heads and the reason why we experience things so differently. \n\nAlso, you’re not considering how men can *literally* buy their way into women’s bodies, i.e., prostitution (sometimes involving poor or underage women), pornography, rape culture, marital rape, arranged marriages, etc etc",
"date": "2023-12-26",
"id": "keycmv0",
"parent_id": "18qs46r",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "RedditExplorer89",
"body": "I hear this in discourse when women wear sexy clothing in movies or video games: that it objectifies women (and I assume the speaker thinks this is a bad thing). This is also usually accompanied with complaints that women are being seen as \"just\" sex objects, and that their other human qualities are being diminished. One women I've met said, \"I want to be seen as more than a bag of warm meat.\"\n\nOn a base level, I do think its bad if someone feels bad, and its clear women feel bad about objectification. In that sense, I'd agree objectification is bad. However, I think these perceptions of their image are distortions, and I don't understand *why* they feel so bad about it. I'll explain the reasoning why I have this view:\n\n1.) Perceptions of objectification are distortions of reality. No guy I've ever met sees women as \"walking vaginas\" or \"bags of warm meat.\" Yeah, sex might be the most attractive thing about a women for some guys, but even the guys trying to constantly get laid understand that they are dealing with a human being who has a brain and feelings. They court women, trying to appeal with intelligent conversation or being sensitive to her feelings (guys that don't do this quickly learn being a douche doesn't get you dates). If they really just wanted warm bags of meat they could much more easily buy meat from the butcher, heat it up in the oven, and play around with that. Or buy a sex doll. But men consistently choose to go after living, breathing women who have brains and opinions.\n\nIn modern media, it may be true that a women's body parts might be the most attractive thing *initially for a guy*, but its really more of an attention grabber. Once the movie/game starts, the personality of woman comes through. For example: Lara Croft in Tomb Raider (a character model who is heavily sexualized) had her personality and story changed part way through, and fans of the franchise were upset over it.\n\n2.) I don't get why women feel bad about objectification. If men were constantly showed as sex objects I don't think it would bother me. Heck, there are even jokes that \"men are dumb,\" or \"men have 0 emotional IQ\" and I just laugh at it. I feel like if I was seen as just a hunk of muscles that would be kinda awesome if anything. I also get the impression a lot of men would be okay with it too, based on the men I've met in my life. So, I don't understand why it seems only women have an issue with this.\n\n**What would change my view**\n\nI'd like to better understand why women feel bad about objectification, and learn if there is truth to their perceptions of their image regarding it.\n\n* Data/studies showing that men only see women as walking bags of meat.\n\n* Tell me why it doesn't feel good to be seen as a sexy creature. Is this just because men have a higher sex drive?\n\n* Maybe something else could change my view, such as pointing out a flaw in my reasoning. This was just what I could think of for this post.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* Men complain about being expected to be the breadwinner, which could point to just either human not understanding the feeling of being a situation they haven't experienced (ie: haven't experienced objectification so I don't know why it would feel bad)\n\n* If people claim your achievements are due to your looks that would be upsetting.\n\n* Historically, women had to put men as the face of their achievement, and to do that had to sleep with the man. This objectification is bad, because they don't get acknowledgement for their achievement and might sleep with someone they otherwise would not want to.\n\n* \"Being compared to things you buy and own as a woman feels shitty because this is how some men still see us -- as property.\" - and objectification can lead to being compared to things you buy.\n\n* Human qualities being diminished could be dangerous and lead to doing inhumane things to those people.\n\n* Honor killings, where women are killed due to bringing shame on the family for being to sexual.\n\n* There are men who treat women poorly with objectification and can be harmful, especially for younger women who might not know what a good relationship looks like.\n\n* [Study](https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/documents/s73942/Appendix%206%20-%20Journal%20Article.pdf) shows that seeing women as sexual objects leads to more sexual assault of women.",
"date": "2023-12-25",
"id": "18qs46r",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Objectification of women isn't as bad as they make it out to be",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18qs46r/cmv_objectification_of_women_isnt_as_bad_as_they/"
},
{
"author": "ConsultJimMoriarty",
"body": "Hello, have your met the incel community?",
"date": "2023-12-26",
"id": "keyjrnf",
"parent_id": "18qs46r",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "RedditExplorer89",
"body": "Technically I'm an incel, but I try to avoid the community as it doesn't seem like a great environment. From what I hear though they are hostile towards women.",
"date": "2023-12-26",
"id": "kezgwmt",
"parent_id": "keyjrnf",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "RedditExplorer89",
"body": "I hear this in discourse when women wear sexy clothing in movies or video games: that it objectifies women (and I assume the speaker thinks this is a bad thing). This is also usually accompanied with complaints that women are being seen as \"just\" sex objects, and that their other human qualities are being diminished. One women I've met said, \"I want to be seen as more than a bag of warm meat.\"\n\nOn a base level, I do think its bad if someone feels bad, and its clear women feel bad about objectification. In that sense, I'd agree objectification is bad. However, I think these perceptions of their image are distortions, and I don't understand *why* they feel so bad about it. I'll explain the reasoning why I have this view:\n\n1.) Perceptions of objectification are distortions of reality. No guy I've ever met sees women as \"walking vaginas\" or \"bags of warm meat.\" Yeah, sex might be the most attractive thing about a women for some guys, but even the guys trying to constantly get laid understand that they are dealing with a human being who has a brain and feelings. They court women, trying to appeal with intelligent conversation or being sensitive to her feelings (guys that don't do this quickly learn being a douche doesn't get you dates). If they really just wanted warm bags of meat they could much more easily buy meat from the butcher, heat it up in the oven, and play around with that. Or buy a sex doll. But men consistently choose to go after living, breathing women who have brains and opinions.\n\nIn modern media, it may be true that a women's body parts might be the most attractive thing *initially for a guy*, but its really more of an attention grabber. Once the movie/game starts, the personality of woman comes through. For example: Lara Croft in Tomb Raider (a character model who is heavily sexualized) had her personality and story changed part way through, and fans of the franchise were upset over it.\n\n2.) I don't get why women feel bad about objectification. If men were constantly showed as sex objects I don't think it would bother me. Heck, there are even jokes that \"men are dumb,\" or \"men have 0 emotional IQ\" and I just laugh at it. I feel like if I was seen as just a hunk of muscles that would be kinda awesome if anything. I also get the impression a lot of men would be okay with it too, based on the men I've met in my life. So, I don't understand why it seems only women have an issue with this.\n\n**What would change my view**\n\nI'd like to better understand why women feel bad about objectification, and learn if there is truth to their perceptions of their image regarding it.\n\n* Data/studies showing that men only see women as walking bags of meat.\n\n* Tell me why it doesn't feel good to be seen as a sexy creature. Is this just because men have a higher sex drive?\n\n* Maybe something else could change my view, such as pointing out a flaw in my reasoning. This was just what I could think of for this post.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* Men complain about being expected to be the breadwinner, which could point to just either human not understanding the feeling of being a situation they haven't experienced (ie: haven't experienced objectification so I don't know why it would feel bad)\n\n* If people claim your achievements are due to your looks that would be upsetting.\n\n* Historically, women had to put men as the face of their achievement, and to do that had to sleep with the man. This objectification is bad, because they don't get acknowledgement for their achievement and might sleep with someone they otherwise would not want to.\n\n* \"Being compared to things you buy and own as a woman feels shitty because this is how some men still see us -- as property.\" - and objectification can lead to being compared to things you buy.\n\n* Human qualities being diminished could be dangerous and lead to doing inhumane things to those people.\n\n* Honor killings, where women are killed due to bringing shame on the family for being to sexual.\n\n* There are men who treat women poorly with objectification and can be harmful, especially for younger women who might not know what a good relationship looks like.\n\n* [Study](https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/documents/s73942/Appendix%206%20-%20Journal%20Article.pdf) shows that seeing women as sexual objects leads to more sexual assault of women.",
"date": "2023-12-25",
"id": "18qs46r",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Objectification of women isn't as bad as they make it out to be",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18qs46r/cmv_objectification_of_women_isnt_as_bad_as_they/"
},
{
"author": "sadopossum",
"body": "I want to kill myself every day because I don't look perfect so idk, can't be that great.",
"date": "2023-12-26",
"id": "keyxji5",
"parent_id": "18qs46r",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "RedditExplorer89",
"body": "I'm sorry to hear that. As I mentioned in my post, I agree that since it causes suffering, it is bad in that sense, regardless of anything else.",
"date": "2023-12-26",
"id": "kezeob5",
"parent_id": "keyxji5",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "RedditExplorer89",
"body": "I hear this in discourse when women wear sexy clothing in movies or video games: that it objectifies women (and I assume the speaker thinks this is a bad thing). This is also usually accompanied with complaints that women are being seen as \"just\" sex objects, and that their other human qualities are being diminished. One women I've met said, \"I want to be seen as more than a bag of warm meat.\"\n\nOn a base level, I do think its bad if someone feels bad, and its clear women feel bad about objectification. In that sense, I'd agree objectification is bad. However, I think these perceptions of their image are distortions, and I don't understand *why* they feel so bad about it. I'll explain the reasoning why I have this view:\n\n1.) Perceptions of objectification are distortions of reality. No guy I've ever met sees women as \"walking vaginas\" or \"bags of warm meat.\" Yeah, sex might be the most attractive thing about a women for some guys, but even the guys trying to constantly get laid understand that they are dealing with a human being who has a brain and feelings. They court women, trying to appeal with intelligent conversation or being sensitive to her feelings (guys that don't do this quickly learn being a douche doesn't get you dates). If they really just wanted warm bags of meat they could much more easily buy meat from the butcher, heat it up in the oven, and play around with that. Or buy a sex doll. But men consistently choose to go after living, breathing women who have brains and opinions.\n\nIn modern media, it may be true that a women's body parts might be the most attractive thing *initially for a guy*, but its really more of an attention grabber. Once the movie/game starts, the personality of woman comes through. For example: Lara Croft in Tomb Raider (a character model who is heavily sexualized) had her personality and story changed part way through, and fans of the franchise were upset over it.\n\n2.) I don't get why women feel bad about objectification. If men were constantly showed as sex objects I don't think it would bother me. Heck, there are even jokes that \"men are dumb,\" or \"men have 0 emotional IQ\" and I just laugh at it. I feel like if I was seen as just a hunk of muscles that would be kinda awesome if anything. I also get the impression a lot of men would be okay with it too, based on the men I've met in my life. So, I don't understand why it seems only women have an issue with this.\n\n**What would change my view**\n\nI'd like to better understand why women feel bad about objectification, and learn if there is truth to their perceptions of their image regarding it.\n\n* Data/studies showing that men only see women as walking bags of meat.\n\n* Tell me why it doesn't feel good to be seen as a sexy creature. Is this just because men have a higher sex drive?\n\n* Maybe something else could change my view, such as pointing out a flaw in my reasoning. This was just what I could think of for this post.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* Men complain about being expected to be the breadwinner, which could point to just either human not understanding the feeling of being a situation they haven't experienced (ie: haven't experienced objectification so I don't know why it would feel bad)\n\n* If people claim your achievements are due to your looks that would be upsetting.\n\n* Historically, women had to put men as the face of their achievement, and to do that had to sleep with the man. This objectification is bad, because they don't get acknowledgement for their achievement and might sleep with someone they otherwise would not want to.\n\n* \"Being compared to things you buy and own as a woman feels shitty because this is how some men still see us -- as property.\" - and objectification can lead to being compared to things you buy.\n\n* Human qualities being diminished could be dangerous and lead to doing inhumane things to those people.\n\n* Honor killings, where women are killed due to bringing shame on the family for being to sexual.\n\n* There are men who treat women poorly with objectification and can be harmful, especially for younger women who might not know what a good relationship looks like.\n\n* [Study](https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/documents/s73942/Appendix%206%20-%20Journal%20Article.pdf) shows that seeing women as sexual objects leads to more sexual assault of women.",
"date": "2023-12-25",
"id": "18qs46r",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Objectification of women isn't as bad as they make it out to be",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18qs46r/cmv_objectification_of_women_isnt_as_bad_as_they/"
},
{
"author": "schwenomorph",
"body": "Would you enjoy being objectified by horns men who have no self control?",
"date": "2023-12-26",
"id": "kf2xszk",
"parent_id": "18qs46r",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "RedditExplorer89",
"body": "I hear this in discourse when women wear sexy clothing in movies or video games: that it objectifies women (and I assume the speaker thinks this is a bad thing). This is also usually accompanied with complaints that women are being seen as \"just\" sex objects, and that their other human qualities are being diminished. One women I've met said, \"I want to be seen as more than a bag of warm meat.\"\n\nOn a base level, I do think its bad if someone feels bad, and its clear women feel bad about objectification. In that sense, I'd agree objectification is bad. However, I think these perceptions of their image are distortions, and I don't understand *why* they feel so bad about it. I'll explain the reasoning why I have this view:\n\n1.) Perceptions of objectification are distortions of reality. No guy I've ever met sees women as \"walking vaginas\" or \"bags of warm meat.\" Yeah, sex might be the most attractive thing about a women for some guys, but even the guys trying to constantly get laid understand that they are dealing with a human being who has a brain and feelings. They court women, trying to appeal with intelligent conversation or being sensitive to her feelings (guys that don't do this quickly learn being a douche doesn't get you dates). If they really just wanted warm bags of meat they could much more easily buy meat from the butcher, heat it up in the oven, and play around with that. Or buy a sex doll. But men consistently choose to go after living, breathing women who have brains and opinions.\n\nIn modern media, it may be true that a women's body parts might be the most attractive thing *initially for a guy*, but its really more of an attention grabber. Once the movie/game starts, the personality of woman comes through. For example: Lara Croft in Tomb Raider (a character model who is heavily sexualized) had her personality and story changed part way through, and fans of the franchise were upset over it.\n\n2.) I don't get why women feel bad about objectification. If men were constantly showed as sex objects I don't think it would bother me. Heck, there are even jokes that \"men are dumb,\" or \"men have 0 emotional IQ\" and I just laugh at it. I feel like if I was seen as just a hunk of muscles that would be kinda awesome if anything. I also get the impression a lot of men would be okay with it too, based on the men I've met in my life. So, I don't understand why it seems only women have an issue with this.\n\n**What would change my view**\n\nI'd like to better understand why women feel bad about objectification, and learn if there is truth to their perceptions of their image regarding it.\n\n* Data/studies showing that men only see women as walking bags of meat.\n\n* Tell me why it doesn't feel good to be seen as a sexy creature. Is this just because men have a higher sex drive?\n\n* Maybe something else could change my view, such as pointing out a flaw in my reasoning. This was just what I could think of for this post.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* Men complain about being expected to be the breadwinner, which could point to just either human not understanding the feeling of being a situation they haven't experienced (ie: haven't experienced objectification so I don't know why it would feel bad)\n\n* If people claim your achievements are due to your looks that would be upsetting.\n\n* Historically, women had to put men as the face of their achievement, and to do that had to sleep with the man. This objectification is bad, because they don't get acknowledgement for their achievement and might sleep with someone they otherwise would not want to.\n\n* \"Being compared to things you buy and own as a woman feels shitty because this is how some men still see us -- as property.\" - and objectification can lead to being compared to things you buy.\n\n* Human qualities being diminished could be dangerous and lead to doing inhumane things to those people.\n\n* Honor killings, where women are killed due to bringing shame on the family for being to sexual.\n\n* There are men who treat women poorly with objectification and can be harmful, especially for younger women who might not know what a good relationship looks like.\n\n* [Study](https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/documents/s73942/Appendix%206%20-%20Journal%20Article.pdf) shows that seeing women as sexual objects leads to more sexual assault of women.",
"date": "2023-12-25",
"id": "18qs46r",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Objectification of women isn't as bad as they make it out to be",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18qs46r/cmv_objectification_of_women_isnt_as_bad_as_they/"
},
{
"author": "IAteTheWholeBanana",
"body": "> Data/studies showing that men only see women as walking bags of meat.\n\nI don't know if there are studies on this, probably, but I've never looked. I was 12 the first time and adult man made an aggressively sexual comment at me. Just about every woman I know has a similar experience. I was in middle school when men started commenting on my body. \n\nIt's not about data, its feelings. being treating like that doesn't feel good.",
"date": "2023-12-27",
"id": "kf5qqmp",
"parent_id": "18qs46r",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "RedditExplorer89",
"body": "I hear this in discourse when women wear sexy clothing in movies or video games: that it objectifies women (and I assume the speaker thinks this is a bad thing). This is also usually accompanied with complaints that women are being seen as \"just\" sex objects, and that their other human qualities are being diminished. One women I've met said, \"I want to be seen as more than a bag of warm meat.\"\n\nOn a base level, I do think its bad if someone feels bad, and its clear women feel bad about objectification. In that sense, I'd agree objectification is bad. However, I think these perceptions of their image are distortions, and I don't understand *why* they feel so bad about it. I'll explain the reasoning why I have this view:\n\n1.) Perceptions of objectification are distortions of reality. No guy I've ever met sees women as \"walking vaginas\" or \"bags of warm meat.\" Yeah, sex might be the most attractive thing about a women for some guys, but even the guys trying to constantly get laid understand that they are dealing with a human being who has a brain and feelings. They court women, trying to appeal with intelligent conversation or being sensitive to her feelings (guys that don't do this quickly learn being a douche doesn't get you dates). If they really just wanted warm bags of meat they could much more easily buy meat from the butcher, heat it up in the oven, and play around with that. Or buy a sex doll. But men consistently choose to go after living, breathing women who have brains and opinions.\n\nIn modern media, it may be true that a women's body parts might be the most attractive thing *initially for a guy*, but its really more of an attention grabber. Once the movie/game starts, the personality of woman comes through. For example: Lara Croft in Tomb Raider (a character model who is heavily sexualized) had her personality and story changed part way through, and fans of the franchise were upset over it.\n\n2.) I don't get why women feel bad about objectification. If men were constantly showed as sex objects I don't think it would bother me. Heck, there are even jokes that \"men are dumb,\" or \"men have 0 emotional IQ\" and I just laugh at it. I feel like if I was seen as just a hunk of muscles that would be kinda awesome if anything. I also get the impression a lot of men would be okay with it too, based on the men I've met in my life. So, I don't understand why it seems only women have an issue with this.\n\n**What would change my view**\n\nI'd like to better understand why women feel bad about objectification, and learn if there is truth to their perceptions of their image regarding it.\n\n* Data/studies showing that men only see women as walking bags of meat.\n\n* Tell me why it doesn't feel good to be seen as a sexy creature. Is this just because men have a higher sex drive?\n\n* Maybe something else could change my view, such as pointing out a flaw in my reasoning. This was just what I could think of for this post.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* Men complain about being expected to be the breadwinner, which could point to just either human not understanding the feeling of being a situation they haven't experienced (ie: haven't experienced objectification so I don't know why it would feel bad)\n\n* If people claim your achievements are due to your looks that would be upsetting.\n\n* Historically, women had to put men as the face of their achievement, and to do that had to sleep with the man. This objectification is bad, because they don't get acknowledgement for their achievement and might sleep with someone they otherwise would not want to.\n\n* \"Being compared to things you buy and own as a woman feels shitty because this is how some men still see us -- as property.\" - and objectification can lead to being compared to things you buy.\n\n* Human qualities being diminished could be dangerous and lead to doing inhumane things to those people.\n\n* Honor killings, where women are killed due to bringing shame on the family for being to sexual.\n\n* There are men who treat women poorly with objectification and can be harmful, especially for younger women who might not know what a good relationship looks like.\n\n* [Study](https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/documents/s73942/Appendix%206%20-%20Journal%20Article.pdf) shows that seeing women as sexual objects leads to more sexual assault of women.",
"date": "2023-12-25",
"id": "18qs46r",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Objectification of women isn't as bad as they make it out to be",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18qs46r/cmv_objectification_of_women_isnt_as_bad_as_they/"
},
{
"author": "pfundie",
"body": ">Yeah, sex might be the most attractive thing about a women for some guys, but even the guys trying to constantly get laid understand that they are dealing with a human being who has a brain and feelings.\n\nRight, but they don't actually care about the brain or feelings. They just have to deal with them to get sex.\n\n>They court women, trying to appeal with intelligent conversation or being sensitive to her feelings (guys that don't do this quickly learn being a douche doesn't get you dates).\n\nExactly the problem here. You see this as \"normal\" and unobjectionable, but what you're describing is a man manipulating a woman into having sex with him by pretending that he cares about who she is as a person. You're *not* describing a man who actually sees value and importance in that woman beyond her body. He's a bad person, who uses other people for his own selfish and hedonistic ends.\n\n>But men consistently choose to go after living, breathing women who have brains and opinions.\n\nYes, that is the problem. They are choosing to go after living, breathing women who have brains and opinions, whose brains and opinions they don't consider important or valuable except as something to leverage for sex. \n\n>I don't get why women feel bad about objectification. If men were constantly showed as sex objects I don't think it would bother me. Heck, there are even jokes that \"men are dumb,\" or \"men have 0 emotional IQ\" and I just laugh at it. I feel like if I was seen as just a hunk of muscles that would be kinda awesome if anything.\n\nYou laugh at it because otherwise you would have to think about it, and it's horrible. You don't see being seen as a hunk of muscles as a bad thing because that is held up as a masculine ideal and men are conditioned into being insecure about being seen as anything else. \n\n>So, I don't understand why it seems only women have an issue with this.\n\nI am a man, and I have an issue with both this as well as the way society generally sees men. They're the same thing, when you get down to it; a bunch of people treating each other like absolute shit for no better reason than that someone older than them told them to. Women want to be valued for their minds and their achievements in the only way that men are seen as valuable. Men want to be able to be seen as desirable and attractive in the way that is generally forced upon women as their dominant means of being valued, whether they want it or not. Thus, men fight a constant, unnecessary battle against a gaping void of masculine insecurity, and women never feel like their minds are seen as valuable or important. We don't actually have to accept this; we are *choosing* to hurt ourselves like this by maintaining these standards.\n\nThis is a difficult realization to make, but we (men) don't actually have to do the whole objectification thing. We are, in ways we don't really think about, constantly pushed towards it. We are even made to feel insecure about considering other qualities than physical attraction in our female partners; talking about women's bodies makes us feel masculine, like we're fitting in, and when we don't participate, we get accused of basically being a failure of a man in some capacity. A whole lot of men have lost interest in a woman after her appearance was disparaged by his friends, and that directly implies that a lot of this stuff *isn't* natural, but is instead something that we have collectively made up to hurt ourselves with. Similarly, men feel insecure about rejecting sex with a woman if she fits within feminine beauty standards, to the point that they feel like they have to justify not doing it.\n\nWe don't have to see women that way. I don't. It's a lot better; I'm actually less anxious because I can seriously be friends or acquaintances with a woman without feeling that constant pressure. I can see that it makes them a lot more comfortable around me as well, because they don't feel like they are either being rejected or pursued when they talk to me. The secret is that men largely objectify women because they are taught that a man who doesn't is failing at being a man, and will be seen as less by his peers.",
"date": "2023-12-27",
"id": "kf5vit8",
"parent_id": "18qs46r",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
]
]
| moderate |
[
{
"author": "forbiddenmemeories",
"body": "The \"right side of history\" and \"wrong side of history\" are phrases I've seen used a lot in recent years, and I don't think they're particularly helpful or illuminating. My main reason for this is that it creates a false dichotomy between people who are wedded to the status quo or convention and policies that uphold it, and people who want to bring about change; it also seems to suggest that striving for change is an inherently positive thing.\n\nIn practice, I think both much good and much bad has been done throughout history by people who viewed themselves as architects of progress. For example:\n\n* **Imperialism** we today regard as a shameful relic of a bygone bloodthirsty era and of antiquated attitudes on subjects like race, religion, international relations, etc. However, many of the justifications given for imperial conquest at the time rested on ideas that would have appeared (and were claimed to be) progressive: ideas like the \"white man's burden\" of having an obligation to bring their ways of life to the \"savage\" peoples of the world, of spiritual salvation to others by spreading Christianity, etc.\n* **Foreign interventionism**: similarly, more modern shifts in which the West and particularly the United States has sought to pursue a more active foreign policy such as in Vietnam, Iraq or the support for the Arab Spring in countries like Libya came with a progressive justification of serving the global community, preventing the spread of authoritarianism and expanding the realm of liberal democracy, and yet many of us regard this today as having been shameful chapters of modern US history. In principle, the idea of stopping the spread of the USSR or toppling dictators such as Saddam Hussein or Colonel Gaddafi seems to square well with progressive visions of a better world for tomorrow - after all, I'm sure we can all regard intervention against powers like Nazi Germany and imperial Japan as having been just and beneficial - but the results of these other interventions were often massive bloodshed, instability, falling quality of life and a sense that the Western powers had vainly meddled in affairs they poorly understood and only succeeded in making things worse.\n* **Lenin, Stalin, Mao et al**: Marxism is fundamentally a progressive creed with a blueprint for a future better and more equitable than the present in which we live, but figures such as Stalin and Mao who pledged to realise these ambitions in government went on to commit some of the worst atrocities in modern history. In their minds, these were presumably not acts of wanton destruction or cruelty but rather necessary and just sacrifices that had to be made to advance their righteous cause.\n* **Eugenics**: Eugenics is by most of us today also indelibly associated with the Nazis and thus often categorised as an extremely conservative strain of thought, but once again it emerged as an alleged means of advancing the cause of humanity and improving our lives, with support from 'progressive' figures around the late 19th and early 20th centuries such as John Harvey Kellogg and Margaret Sanger, and opposition from institutions generally considered conservative such as the Catholic church, and associated traditional beliefs such as in the 'sanctity of life'.\n\nThese and other examples are all cases which have certainly ended up on the 'wrong side of history', that we look back on today as abhorrent, and yet which emerged with the same justification as behind any strain of thought we might deem progressive - i.e., progressing some feature of our lives and improving human society overall. We could of course question the sincerity of these actors' motivations - that the imperialists cared far more about gold and diamonds than about conversion, that despots like Stalin and Mao had no real attachment to Marxist ideals, etc. - but the same accusations can be levelled at anyone who cites some creed or other as their reason for supporting certain policies.\n\nIt seems to me then that trying to speculate about how future generations will view our actions or whether they will contribute to a historical tide of progress is not especially helpful, as awful policies can emerge from these kinds of goals just as easily as beneficial ones. This is not to argue that progress is a myth or that change is bad, and indeed there are many policies and causes today regarded as 'progressive' that I have support or at least sympathy for; it's merely to argue that change also isn't always good and that change and progress are not synonymous, and thus that phrases like the \"right\" or \"wrong\" side of history are unhelpful as they frame opposing change as more or less meaning to oppose what is good.\n\nCMV.",
"date": "2023-12-30",
"id": "18uriv3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 125,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The \"right/wrong side of history\" is not a helpful concept when considering which policies or creeds to support",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18uriv3/cmv_the_rightwrong_side_of_history_is_not_a/"
},
{
"author": "lily_34",
"body": "It's not a fool-proof concept, but I think it can be helpful. I personally subscribe to the idea that trying to stop progress is futile - but if you don't like where it's going, you can try to steer it.\n\nLet's say I don't like some modern tendency. To illustrate, let's use neoliberal globalization. There are two possible approaches to that.\n\nFirst is the reactionary one: try to stop it or turn back the clock. Reassert national authority, weaken international organizations, etc. Usually this reactionary approach will be accompanies by a rise in fascism - but even if they somehow managed to avoid that, I would still avoid. Simply because I don't think globalization CAN be stopped. It is a direct result of new technologies breaking down barriers. These barriers won't be unbroken. The technologies will exist and improve.\n\nThen there are the progressive approaches. You don't fight globalization, but try to adjust course. There could, of course, be multiple possible directions. For example, instead of freedom of trade and capital, focus on freedom of people to move. Or on democratizing the global regulatory bodies like the WTO. Or, capitalize of globalization to conquer the world and build an empire.\n\nNow, which of the progressive approaches are right or wrong is always a question that should be asked. But I think, generally, the reactionary ones are at beast pointless - and usually worse.",
"date": "2023-12-30",
"id": "kfmckjn",
"parent_id": "18uriv3",
"score": 24,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "forbiddenmemeories",
"body": "I think some of the above examples would suggest that certain things - things often once deemed \"progress\" by their supporters, though we definitely wouldn't call them progress today - really can be stopped from developing any further. The form of politics practised in the USSR post-Revolution and in China under Mao has largely died out after emerging in the early to mid twentieth century. Eugenics as a whole concept has been completely beyond the pale in the Western world post-1945 after being semi-popular in intellectual circles from the late 1800s until that point.\n\nIt's certainly true in the broadest of senses that 'progress' or just change in general cannot be avoided - the world will not stay the same forever - but from these examples it would seem that on some issues, after flirting with new ideas it is actually possible to return to something closer to our old baseline. Today's economic system is probably closer to that which existed prior to the Russian Revolution than it is to a state socialist one, and our views on the morality of controlling the gene pool are probably closer to the views of people in the mid-1800s than they are to the views of eugenicists.\n\nI will however say !delta on the point of reactionary responses to certain policies. You have raised a good point of the problems with a reactionary response being not just scepticism of progress but taking quite extreme measures to try and stop it, and whilst I disagree to an extent on the inevitability of progress I can see that there is some use in drawing comparisons between reactionary responses to change today and similar responses in the past which led to grim consequences.",
"date": "2023-12-30",
"id": "kfmvz9c",
"parent_id": "kfmckjn",
"score": 8,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "DeltaBot",
"body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/lily_34 ([1∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/lily_34)).\n\n^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
"date": "2023-12-30",
"id": "kfmw3lk",
"parent_id": "kfmvz9c",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
]
| [
[
{
"author": "forbiddenmemeories",
"body": "The \"right side of history\" and \"wrong side of history\" are phrases I've seen used a lot in recent years, and I don't think they're particularly helpful or illuminating. My main reason for this is that it creates a false dichotomy between people who are wedded to the status quo or convention and policies that uphold it, and people who want to bring about change; it also seems to suggest that striving for change is an inherently positive thing.\n\nIn practice, I think both much good and much bad has been done throughout history by people who viewed themselves as architects of progress. For example:\n\n* **Imperialism** we today regard as a shameful relic of a bygone bloodthirsty era and of antiquated attitudes on subjects like race, religion, international relations, etc. However, many of the justifications given for imperial conquest at the time rested on ideas that would have appeared (and were claimed to be) progressive: ideas like the \"white man's burden\" of having an obligation to bring their ways of life to the \"savage\" peoples of the world, of spiritual salvation to others by spreading Christianity, etc.\n* **Foreign interventionism**: similarly, more modern shifts in which the West and particularly the United States has sought to pursue a more active foreign policy such as in Vietnam, Iraq or the support for the Arab Spring in countries like Libya came with a progressive justification of serving the global community, preventing the spread of authoritarianism and expanding the realm of liberal democracy, and yet many of us regard this today as having been shameful chapters of modern US history. In principle, the idea of stopping the spread of the USSR or toppling dictators such as Saddam Hussein or Colonel Gaddafi seems to square well with progressive visions of a better world for tomorrow - after all, I'm sure we can all regard intervention against powers like Nazi Germany and imperial Japan as having been just and beneficial - but the results of these other interventions were often massive bloodshed, instability, falling quality of life and a sense that the Western powers had vainly meddled in affairs they poorly understood and only succeeded in making things worse.\n* **Lenin, Stalin, Mao et al**: Marxism is fundamentally a progressive creed with a blueprint for a future better and more equitable than the present in which we live, but figures such as Stalin and Mao who pledged to realise these ambitions in government went on to commit some of the worst atrocities in modern history. In their minds, these were presumably not acts of wanton destruction or cruelty but rather necessary and just sacrifices that had to be made to advance their righteous cause.\n* **Eugenics**: Eugenics is by most of us today also indelibly associated with the Nazis and thus often categorised as an extremely conservative strain of thought, but once again it emerged as an alleged means of advancing the cause of humanity and improving our lives, with support from 'progressive' figures around the late 19th and early 20th centuries such as John Harvey Kellogg and Margaret Sanger, and opposition from institutions generally considered conservative such as the Catholic church, and associated traditional beliefs such as in the 'sanctity of life'.\n\nThese and other examples are all cases which have certainly ended up on the 'wrong side of history', that we look back on today as abhorrent, and yet which emerged with the same justification as behind any strain of thought we might deem progressive - i.e., progressing some feature of our lives and improving human society overall. We could of course question the sincerity of these actors' motivations - that the imperialists cared far more about gold and diamonds than about conversion, that despots like Stalin and Mao had no real attachment to Marxist ideals, etc. - but the same accusations can be levelled at anyone who cites some creed or other as their reason for supporting certain policies.\n\nIt seems to me then that trying to speculate about how future generations will view our actions or whether they will contribute to a historical tide of progress is not especially helpful, as awful policies can emerge from these kinds of goals just as easily as beneficial ones. This is not to argue that progress is a myth or that change is bad, and indeed there are many policies and causes today regarded as 'progressive' that I have support or at least sympathy for; it's merely to argue that change also isn't always good and that change and progress are not synonymous, and thus that phrases like the \"right\" or \"wrong\" side of history are unhelpful as they frame opposing change as more or less meaning to oppose what is good.\n\nCMV.",
"date": "2023-12-30",
"id": "18uriv3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 125,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The \"right/wrong side of history\" is not a helpful concept when considering which policies or creeds to support",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18uriv3/cmv_the_rightwrong_side_of_history_is_not_a/"
},
{
"author": "Fe-dom",
"body": "I agree, the question is also the wrong side of history “at what point.” At first at one point in history all those people appeared to be winning and there is also no guarantee that the balance of power might shift back towards the other side on any of these things. Then things will be reversed and everyone who was on the wrong side of history will then be on the right side of history and vice versa.",
"date": "2023-12-30",
"id": "kfm7z4b",
"parent_id": "18uriv3",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "forbiddenmemeories",
"body": "The \"right side of history\" and \"wrong side of history\" are phrases I've seen used a lot in recent years, and I don't think they're particularly helpful or illuminating. My main reason for this is that it creates a false dichotomy between people who are wedded to the status quo or convention and policies that uphold it, and people who want to bring about change; it also seems to suggest that striving for change is an inherently positive thing.\n\nIn practice, I think both much good and much bad has been done throughout history by people who viewed themselves as architects of progress. For example:\n\n* **Imperialism** we today regard as a shameful relic of a bygone bloodthirsty era and of antiquated attitudes on subjects like race, religion, international relations, etc. However, many of the justifications given for imperial conquest at the time rested on ideas that would have appeared (and were claimed to be) progressive: ideas like the \"white man's burden\" of having an obligation to bring their ways of life to the \"savage\" peoples of the world, of spiritual salvation to others by spreading Christianity, etc.\n* **Foreign interventionism**: similarly, more modern shifts in which the West and particularly the United States has sought to pursue a more active foreign policy such as in Vietnam, Iraq or the support for the Arab Spring in countries like Libya came with a progressive justification of serving the global community, preventing the spread of authoritarianism and expanding the realm of liberal democracy, and yet many of us regard this today as having been shameful chapters of modern US history. In principle, the idea of stopping the spread of the USSR or toppling dictators such as Saddam Hussein or Colonel Gaddafi seems to square well with progressive visions of a better world for tomorrow - after all, I'm sure we can all regard intervention against powers like Nazi Germany and imperial Japan as having been just and beneficial - but the results of these other interventions were often massive bloodshed, instability, falling quality of life and a sense that the Western powers had vainly meddled in affairs they poorly understood and only succeeded in making things worse.\n* **Lenin, Stalin, Mao et al**: Marxism is fundamentally a progressive creed with a blueprint for a future better and more equitable than the present in which we live, but figures such as Stalin and Mao who pledged to realise these ambitions in government went on to commit some of the worst atrocities in modern history. In their minds, these were presumably not acts of wanton destruction or cruelty but rather necessary and just sacrifices that had to be made to advance their righteous cause.\n* **Eugenics**: Eugenics is by most of us today also indelibly associated with the Nazis and thus often categorised as an extremely conservative strain of thought, but once again it emerged as an alleged means of advancing the cause of humanity and improving our lives, with support from 'progressive' figures around the late 19th and early 20th centuries such as John Harvey Kellogg and Margaret Sanger, and opposition from institutions generally considered conservative such as the Catholic church, and associated traditional beliefs such as in the 'sanctity of life'.\n\nThese and other examples are all cases which have certainly ended up on the 'wrong side of history', that we look back on today as abhorrent, and yet which emerged with the same justification as behind any strain of thought we might deem progressive - i.e., progressing some feature of our lives and improving human society overall. We could of course question the sincerity of these actors' motivations - that the imperialists cared far more about gold and diamonds than about conversion, that despots like Stalin and Mao had no real attachment to Marxist ideals, etc. - but the same accusations can be levelled at anyone who cites some creed or other as their reason for supporting certain policies.\n\nIt seems to me then that trying to speculate about how future generations will view our actions or whether they will contribute to a historical tide of progress is not especially helpful, as awful policies can emerge from these kinds of goals just as easily as beneficial ones. This is not to argue that progress is a myth or that change is bad, and indeed there are many policies and causes today regarded as 'progressive' that I have support or at least sympathy for; it's merely to argue that change also isn't always good and that change and progress are not synonymous, and thus that phrases like the \"right\" or \"wrong\" side of history are unhelpful as they frame opposing change as more or less meaning to oppose what is good.\n\nCMV.",
"date": "2023-12-30",
"id": "18uriv3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 125,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The \"right/wrong side of history\" is not a helpful concept when considering which policies or creeds to support",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18uriv3/cmv_the_rightwrong_side_of_history_is_not_a/"
},
{
"author": "MrGraeme",
"body": "The \"right/wrong side of history\" argument is meant to encourage people to consider the long-term implications of the policies that they support - it's not meant to say that any individual policy is good simply because it's progressive.",
"date": "2023-12-30",
"id": "kfm9amw",
"parent_id": "18uriv3",
"score": 76,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Cerael",
"body": "I see it used as a way to vilify and shame the person, generally around polarizing topics. It just seems like tribalism to me.",
"date": "2023-12-30",
"id": "kfma4mz",
"parent_id": "kfm9amw",
"score": 16,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "forbiddenmemeories",
"body": "The \"right side of history\" and \"wrong side of history\" are phrases I've seen used a lot in recent years, and I don't think they're particularly helpful or illuminating. My main reason for this is that it creates a false dichotomy between people who are wedded to the status quo or convention and policies that uphold it, and people who want to bring about change; it also seems to suggest that striving for change is an inherently positive thing.\n\nIn practice, I think both much good and much bad has been done throughout history by people who viewed themselves as architects of progress. For example:\n\n* **Imperialism** we today regard as a shameful relic of a bygone bloodthirsty era and of antiquated attitudes on subjects like race, religion, international relations, etc. However, many of the justifications given for imperial conquest at the time rested on ideas that would have appeared (and were claimed to be) progressive: ideas like the \"white man's burden\" of having an obligation to bring their ways of life to the \"savage\" peoples of the world, of spiritual salvation to others by spreading Christianity, etc.\n* **Foreign interventionism**: similarly, more modern shifts in which the West and particularly the United States has sought to pursue a more active foreign policy such as in Vietnam, Iraq or the support for the Arab Spring in countries like Libya came with a progressive justification of serving the global community, preventing the spread of authoritarianism and expanding the realm of liberal democracy, and yet many of us regard this today as having been shameful chapters of modern US history. In principle, the idea of stopping the spread of the USSR or toppling dictators such as Saddam Hussein or Colonel Gaddafi seems to square well with progressive visions of a better world for tomorrow - after all, I'm sure we can all regard intervention against powers like Nazi Germany and imperial Japan as having been just and beneficial - but the results of these other interventions were often massive bloodshed, instability, falling quality of life and a sense that the Western powers had vainly meddled in affairs they poorly understood and only succeeded in making things worse.\n* **Lenin, Stalin, Mao et al**: Marxism is fundamentally a progressive creed with a blueprint for a future better and more equitable than the present in which we live, but figures such as Stalin and Mao who pledged to realise these ambitions in government went on to commit some of the worst atrocities in modern history. In their minds, these were presumably not acts of wanton destruction or cruelty but rather necessary and just sacrifices that had to be made to advance their righteous cause.\n* **Eugenics**: Eugenics is by most of us today also indelibly associated with the Nazis and thus often categorised as an extremely conservative strain of thought, but once again it emerged as an alleged means of advancing the cause of humanity and improving our lives, with support from 'progressive' figures around the late 19th and early 20th centuries such as John Harvey Kellogg and Margaret Sanger, and opposition from institutions generally considered conservative such as the Catholic church, and associated traditional beliefs such as in the 'sanctity of life'.\n\nThese and other examples are all cases which have certainly ended up on the 'wrong side of history', that we look back on today as abhorrent, and yet which emerged with the same justification as behind any strain of thought we might deem progressive - i.e., progressing some feature of our lives and improving human society overall. We could of course question the sincerity of these actors' motivations - that the imperialists cared far more about gold and diamonds than about conversion, that despots like Stalin and Mao had no real attachment to Marxist ideals, etc. - but the same accusations can be levelled at anyone who cites some creed or other as their reason for supporting certain policies.\n\nIt seems to me then that trying to speculate about how future generations will view our actions or whether they will contribute to a historical tide of progress is not especially helpful, as awful policies can emerge from these kinds of goals just as easily as beneficial ones. This is not to argue that progress is a myth or that change is bad, and indeed there are many policies and causes today regarded as 'progressive' that I have support or at least sympathy for; it's merely to argue that change also isn't always good and that change and progress are not synonymous, and thus that phrases like the \"right\" or \"wrong\" side of history are unhelpful as they frame opposing change as more or less meaning to oppose what is good.\n\nCMV.",
"date": "2023-12-30",
"id": "18uriv3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 125,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The \"right/wrong side of history\" is not a helpful concept when considering which policies or creeds to support",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18uriv3/cmv_the_rightwrong_side_of_history_is_not_a/"
},
{
"author": "Patient-Currency7524",
"body": "This is weird, because you’re literally making the “right/wrong side of history” argument to bolster your true claim, which is that being progressive isn’t always good. \n\nThe “right/wrong side of history argument” is specifically brought up to illustrate the point that a lot of evils were committed by people who thought they were in the right. \n\nYou should rename this “cmv: change isn’t always good, and basically nobody thinks of themselves as evil”",
"date": "2023-12-30",
"id": "kfm9bjf",
"parent_id": "18uriv3",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "forbiddenmemeories",
"body": "The \"right side of history\" and \"wrong side of history\" are phrases I've seen used a lot in recent years, and I don't think they're particularly helpful or illuminating. My main reason for this is that it creates a false dichotomy between people who are wedded to the status quo or convention and policies that uphold it, and people who want to bring about change; it also seems to suggest that striving for change is an inherently positive thing.\n\nIn practice, I think both much good and much bad has been done throughout history by people who viewed themselves as architects of progress. For example:\n\n* **Imperialism** we today regard as a shameful relic of a bygone bloodthirsty era and of antiquated attitudes on subjects like race, religion, international relations, etc. However, many of the justifications given for imperial conquest at the time rested on ideas that would have appeared (and were claimed to be) progressive: ideas like the \"white man's burden\" of having an obligation to bring their ways of life to the \"savage\" peoples of the world, of spiritual salvation to others by spreading Christianity, etc.\n* **Foreign interventionism**: similarly, more modern shifts in which the West and particularly the United States has sought to pursue a more active foreign policy such as in Vietnam, Iraq or the support for the Arab Spring in countries like Libya came with a progressive justification of serving the global community, preventing the spread of authoritarianism and expanding the realm of liberal democracy, and yet many of us regard this today as having been shameful chapters of modern US history. In principle, the idea of stopping the spread of the USSR or toppling dictators such as Saddam Hussein or Colonel Gaddafi seems to square well with progressive visions of a better world for tomorrow - after all, I'm sure we can all regard intervention against powers like Nazi Germany and imperial Japan as having been just and beneficial - but the results of these other interventions were often massive bloodshed, instability, falling quality of life and a sense that the Western powers had vainly meddled in affairs they poorly understood and only succeeded in making things worse.\n* **Lenin, Stalin, Mao et al**: Marxism is fundamentally a progressive creed with a blueprint for a future better and more equitable than the present in which we live, but figures such as Stalin and Mao who pledged to realise these ambitions in government went on to commit some of the worst atrocities in modern history. In their minds, these were presumably not acts of wanton destruction or cruelty but rather necessary and just sacrifices that had to be made to advance their righteous cause.\n* **Eugenics**: Eugenics is by most of us today also indelibly associated with the Nazis and thus often categorised as an extremely conservative strain of thought, but once again it emerged as an alleged means of advancing the cause of humanity and improving our lives, with support from 'progressive' figures around the late 19th and early 20th centuries such as John Harvey Kellogg and Margaret Sanger, and opposition from institutions generally considered conservative such as the Catholic church, and associated traditional beliefs such as in the 'sanctity of life'.\n\nThese and other examples are all cases which have certainly ended up on the 'wrong side of history', that we look back on today as abhorrent, and yet which emerged with the same justification as behind any strain of thought we might deem progressive - i.e., progressing some feature of our lives and improving human society overall. We could of course question the sincerity of these actors' motivations - that the imperialists cared far more about gold and diamonds than about conversion, that despots like Stalin and Mao had no real attachment to Marxist ideals, etc. - but the same accusations can be levelled at anyone who cites some creed or other as their reason for supporting certain policies.\n\nIt seems to me then that trying to speculate about how future generations will view our actions or whether they will contribute to a historical tide of progress is not especially helpful, as awful policies can emerge from these kinds of goals just as easily as beneficial ones. This is not to argue that progress is a myth or that change is bad, and indeed there are many policies and causes today regarded as 'progressive' that I have support or at least sympathy for; it's merely to argue that change also isn't always good and that change and progress are not synonymous, and thus that phrases like the \"right\" or \"wrong\" side of history are unhelpful as they frame opposing change as more or less meaning to oppose what is good.\n\nCMV.",
"date": "2023-12-30",
"id": "18uriv3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 125,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The \"right/wrong side of history\" is not a helpful concept when considering which policies or creeds to support",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18uriv3/cmv_the_rightwrong_side_of_history_is_not_a/"
},
{
"author": "page0rz",
"body": ">It seems to me then that trying to speculate about how future generations will view our actions or whether they will contribute to a historical tide of progress is not especially helpful, as awful policies can emerge from these kinds of goals just as easily as beneficial ones\n\nWhy is this necessary? The issue of posterity is not all of it, the argument about being in the right or wrong was (and is) happening in the present. As presented, it's like the entire western world was united in imperialism, and all for supposedly \"progressive\" reasons, and then centuries later we suddenly realized it was wrong. No. People at the time, in the west and definitely outside of the west, were saying it was bad and evil, and laying out compelling arguments for that. We don't flop a coin to decide our moral positions and then say, \"only god can judge.\" This is very, \"white people and liberliam are good because they figured out slavery was bad\" energy, which is a common angle people take for arguments around that, all while ignoring that slaves knew it was bad the entire time it was going on",
"date": "2023-12-30",
"id": "kfmetx1",
"parent_id": "18uriv3",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "forbiddenmemeories",
"body": "The \"right side of history\" and \"wrong side of history\" are phrases I've seen used a lot in recent years, and I don't think they're particularly helpful or illuminating. My main reason for this is that it creates a false dichotomy between people who are wedded to the status quo or convention and policies that uphold it, and people who want to bring about change; it also seems to suggest that striving for change is an inherently positive thing.\n\nIn practice, I think both much good and much bad has been done throughout history by people who viewed themselves as architects of progress. For example:\n\n* **Imperialism** we today regard as a shameful relic of a bygone bloodthirsty era and of antiquated attitudes on subjects like race, religion, international relations, etc. However, many of the justifications given for imperial conquest at the time rested on ideas that would have appeared (and were claimed to be) progressive: ideas like the \"white man's burden\" of having an obligation to bring their ways of life to the \"savage\" peoples of the world, of spiritual salvation to others by spreading Christianity, etc.\n* **Foreign interventionism**: similarly, more modern shifts in which the West and particularly the United States has sought to pursue a more active foreign policy such as in Vietnam, Iraq or the support for the Arab Spring in countries like Libya came with a progressive justification of serving the global community, preventing the spread of authoritarianism and expanding the realm of liberal democracy, and yet many of us regard this today as having been shameful chapters of modern US history. In principle, the idea of stopping the spread of the USSR or toppling dictators such as Saddam Hussein or Colonel Gaddafi seems to square well with progressive visions of a better world for tomorrow - after all, I'm sure we can all regard intervention against powers like Nazi Germany and imperial Japan as having been just and beneficial - but the results of these other interventions were often massive bloodshed, instability, falling quality of life and a sense that the Western powers had vainly meddled in affairs they poorly understood and only succeeded in making things worse.\n* **Lenin, Stalin, Mao et al**: Marxism is fundamentally a progressive creed with a blueprint for a future better and more equitable than the present in which we live, but figures such as Stalin and Mao who pledged to realise these ambitions in government went on to commit some of the worst atrocities in modern history. In their minds, these were presumably not acts of wanton destruction or cruelty but rather necessary and just sacrifices that had to be made to advance their righteous cause.\n* **Eugenics**: Eugenics is by most of us today also indelibly associated with the Nazis and thus often categorised as an extremely conservative strain of thought, but once again it emerged as an alleged means of advancing the cause of humanity and improving our lives, with support from 'progressive' figures around the late 19th and early 20th centuries such as John Harvey Kellogg and Margaret Sanger, and opposition from institutions generally considered conservative such as the Catholic church, and associated traditional beliefs such as in the 'sanctity of life'.\n\nThese and other examples are all cases which have certainly ended up on the 'wrong side of history', that we look back on today as abhorrent, and yet which emerged with the same justification as behind any strain of thought we might deem progressive - i.e., progressing some feature of our lives and improving human society overall. We could of course question the sincerity of these actors' motivations - that the imperialists cared far more about gold and diamonds than about conversion, that despots like Stalin and Mao had no real attachment to Marxist ideals, etc. - but the same accusations can be levelled at anyone who cites some creed or other as their reason for supporting certain policies.\n\nIt seems to me then that trying to speculate about how future generations will view our actions or whether they will contribute to a historical tide of progress is not especially helpful, as awful policies can emerge from these kinds of goals just as easily as beneficial ones. This is not to argue that progress is a myth or that change is bad, and indeed there are many policies and causes today regarded as 'progressive' that I have support or at least sympathy for; it's merely to argue that change also isn't always good and that change and progress are not synonymous, and thus that phrases like the \"right\" or \"wrong\" side of history are unhelpful as they frame opposing change as more or less meaning to oppose what is good.\n\nCMV.",
"date": "2023-12-30",
"id": "18uriv3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 125,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The \"right/wrong side of history\" is not a helpful concept when considering which policies or creeds to support",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18uriv3/cmv_the_rightwrong_side_of_history_is_not_a/"
},
{
"author": "teaguechrystie",
"body": "Some people are trying to be a good ancestor.\n\nI think that's cool.",
"date": "2023-12-30",
"id": "kfmgnq5",
"parent_id": "18uriv3",
"score": -2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "In_Pursuit_of_Fire",
"body": "Colonizers were trying to be a good ancestors. Hitler was trying to be a good ancestor. I’m sure plenty of other terrible were trying to do right by their future progeny.\n\nOP’s point that “being on the right side of history” isn’t a useful metric still stands.",
"date": "2023-12-30",
"id": "kfn903r",
"parent_id": "kfmgnq5",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "forbiddenmemeories",
"body": "The \"right side of history\" and \"wrong side of history\" are phrases I've seen used a lot in recent years, and I don't think they're particularly helpful or illuminating. My main reason for this is that it creates a false dichotomy between people who are wedded to the status quo or convention and policies that uphold it, and people who want to bring about change; it also seems to suggest that striving for change is an inherently positive thing.\n\nIn practice, I think both much good and much bad has been done throughout history by people who viewed themselves as architects of progress. For example:\n\n* **Imperialism** we today regard as a shameful relic of a bygone bloodthirsty era and of antiquated attitudes on subjects like race, religion, international relations, etc. However, many of the justifications given for imperial conquest at the time rested on ideas that would have appeared (and were claimed to be) progressive: ideas like the \"white man's burden\" of having an obligation to bring their ways of life to the \"savage\" peoples of the world, of spiritual salvation to others by spreading Christianity, etc.\n* **Foreign interventionism**: similarly, more modern shifts in which the West and particularly the United States has sought to pursue a more active foreign policy such as in Vietnam, Iraq or the support for the Arab Spring in countries like Libya came with a progressive justification of serving the global community, preventing the spread of authoritarianism and expanding the realm of liberal democracy, and yet many of us regard this today as having been shameful chapters of modern US history. In principle, the idea of stopping the spread of the USSR or toppling dictators such as Saddam Hussein or Colonel Gaddafi seems to square well with progressive visions of a better world for tomorrow - after all, I'm sure we can all regard intervention against powers like Nazi Germany and imperial Japan as having been just and beneficial - but the results of these other interventions were often massive bloodshed, instability, falling quality of life and a sense that the Western powers had vainly meddled in affairs they poorly understood and only succeeded in making things worse.\n* **Lenin, Stalin, Mao et al**: Marxism is fundamentally a progressive creed with a blueprint for a future better and more equitable than the present in which we live, but figures such as Stalin and Mao who pledged to realise these ambitions in government went on to commit some of the worst atrocities in modern history. In their minds, these were presumably not acts of wanton destruction or cruelty but rather necessary and just sacrifices that had to be made to advance their righteous cause.\n* **Eugenics**: Eugenics is by most of us today also indelibly associated with the Nazis and thus often categorised as an extremely conservative strain of thought, but once again it emerged as an alleged means of advancing the cause of humanity and improving our lives, with support from 'progressive' figures around the late 19th and early 20th centuries such as John Harvey Kellogg and Margaret Sanger, and opposition from institutions generally considered conservative such as the Catholic church, and associated traditional beliefs such as in the 'sanctity of life'.\n\nThese and other examples are all cases which have certainly ended up on the 'wrong side of history', that we look back on today as abhorrent, and yet which emerged with the same justification as behind any strain of thought we might deem progressive - i.e., progressing some feature of our lives and improving human society overall. We could of course question the sincerity of these actors' motivations - that the imperialists cared far more about gold and diamonds than about conversion, that despots like Stalin and Mao had no real attachment to Marxist ideals, etc. - but the same accusations can be levelled at anyone who cites some creed or other as their reason for supporting certain policies.\n\nIt seems to me then that trying to speculate about how future generations will view our actions or whether they will contribute to a historical tide of progress is not especially helpful, as awful policies can emerge from these kinds of goals just as easily as beneficial ones. This is not to argue that progress is a myth or that change is bad, and indeed there are many policies and causes today regarded as 'progressive' that I have support or at least sympathy for; it's merely to argue that change also isn't always good and that change and progress are not synonymous, and thus that phrases like the \"right\" or \"wrong\" side of history are unhelpful as they frame opposing change as more or less meaning to oppose what is good.\n\nCMV.",
"date": "2023-12-30",
"id": "18uriv3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 125,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The \"right/wrong side of history\" is not a helpful concept when considering which policies or creeds to support",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18uriv3/cmv_the_rightwrong_side_of_history_is_not_a/"
},
{
"author": "romantic_gestalt",
"body": "The whole concept of \"The right side of history\"is a fallacy because the Victor often destroys the loose and hence the society adopted the winners'POV.",
"date": "2023-12-30",
"id": "kfmljgu",
"parent_id": "18uriv3",
"score": -1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "thedylanackerman",
"body": "Sorry, u/romantic_gestalt – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\r\n\r\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). \r\n\r\nIf you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20romantic_gestalt&message=romantic_gestalt%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\\[their%20comment\\]\\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/18uriv3/-/kfmljgu/\\)%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. \r\n\r\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
"date": "2023-12-31",
"id": "kfp7tq3",
"parent_id": "kfmljgu",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "forbiddenmemeories",
"body": "The \"right side of history\" and \"wrong side of history\" are phrases I've seen used a lot in recent years, and I don't think they're particularly helpful or illuminating. My main reason for this is that it creates a false dichotomy between people who are wedded to the status quo or convention and policies that uphold it, and people who want to bring about change; it also seems to suggest that striving for change is an inherently positive thing.\n\nIn practice, I think both much good and much bad has been done throughout history by people who viewed themselves as architects of progress. For example:\n\n* **Imperialism** we today regard as a shameful relic of a bygone bloodthirsty era and of antiquated attitudes on subjects like race, religion, international relations, etc. However, many of the justifications given for imperial conquest at the time rested on ideas that would have appeared (and were claimed to be) progressive: ideas like the \"white man's burden\" of having an obligation to bring their ways of life to the \"savage\" peoples of the world, of spiritual salvation to others by spreading Christianity, etc.\n* **Foreign interventionism**: similarly, more modern shifts in which the West and particularly the United States has sought to pursue a more active foreign policy such as in Vietnam, Iraq or the support for the Arab Spring in countries like Libya came with a progressive justification of serving the global community, preventing the spread of authoritarianism and expanding the realm of liberal democracy, and yet many of us regard this today as having been shameful chapters of modern US history. In principle, the idea of stopping the spread of the USSR or toppling dictators such as Saddam Hussein or Colonel Gaddafi seems to square well with progressive visions of a better world for tomorrow - after all, I'm sure we can all regard intervention against powers like Nazi Germany and imperial Japan as having been just and beneficial - but the results of these other interventions were often massive bloodshed, instability, falling quality of life and a sense that the Western powers had vainly meddled in affairs they poorly understood and only succeeded in making things worse.\n* **Lenin, Stalin, Mao et al**: Marxism is fundamentally a progressive creed with a blueprint for a future better and more equitable than the present in which we live, but figures such as Stalin and Mao who pledged to realise these ambitions in government went on to commit some of the worst atrocities in modern history. In their minds, these were presumably not acts of wanton destruction or cruelty but rather necessary and just sacrifices that had to be made to advance their righteous cause.\n* **Eugenics**: Eugenics is by most of us today also indelibly associated with the Nazis and thus often categorised as an extremely conservative strain of thought, but once again it emerged as an alleged means of advancing the cause of humanity and improving our lives, with support from 'progressive' figures around the late 19th and early 20th centuries such as John Harvey Kellogg and Margaret Sanger, and opposition from institutions generally considered conservative such as the Catholic church, and associated traditional beliefs such as in the 'sanctity of life'.\n\nThese and other examples are all cases which have certainly ended up on the 'wrong side of history', that we look back on today as abhorrent, and yet which emerged with the same justification as behind any strain of thought we might deem progressive - i.e., progressing some feature of our lives and improving human society overall. We could of course question the sincerity of these actors' motivations - that the imperialists cared far more about gold and diamonds than about conversion, that despots like Stalin and Mao had no real attachment to Marxist ideals, etc. - but the same accusations can be levelled at anyone who cites some creed or other as their reason for supporting certain policies.\n\nIt seems to me then that trying to speculate about how future generations will view our actions or whether they will contribute to a historical tide of progress is not especially helpful, as awful policies can emerge from these kinds of goals just as easily as beneficial ones. This is not to argue that progress is a myth or that change is bad, and indeed there are many policies and causes today regarded as 'progressive' that I have support or at least sympathy for; it's merely to argue that change also isn't always good and that change and progress are not synonymous, and thus that phrases like the \"right\" or \"wrong\" side of history are unhelpful as they frame opposing change as more or less meaning to oppose what is good.\n\nCMV.",
"date": "2023-12-30",
"id": "18uriv3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 125,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The \"right/wrong side of history\" is not a helpful concept when considering which policies or creeds to support",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18uriv3/cmv_the_rightwrong_side_of_history_is_not_a/"
},
{
"author": "Natural-Arugula",
"body": ">These and other examples are all cases which have certainly ended up on the 'wrong side of history', that we look back on today as abhorrent\n\nYeah, that's the perspective behind the concept of right/wrong side of history. You seem to acknowledge that it is a historical fact that actions will be judged as right and wrong by future society, so you concede that this framework is correct.\n\nAre you just disputing that it's actually possible to accurately predict which actions will be judged thus, so we should not attempt to?",
"date": "2023-12-30",
"id": "kfmmwbt",
"parent_id": "18uriv3",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "forbiddenmemeories",
"body": "The \"right side of history\" and \"wrong side of history\" are phrases I've seen used a lot in recent years, and I don't think they're particularly helpful or illuminating. My main reason for this is that it creates a false dichotomy between people who are wedded to the status quo or convention and policies that uphold it, and people who want to bring about change; it also seems to suggest that striving for change is an inherently positive thing.\n\nIn practice, I think both much good and much bad has been done throughout history by people who viewed themselves as architects of progress. For example:\n\n* **Imperialism** we today regard as a shameful relic of a bygone bloodthirsty era and of antiquated attitudes on subjects like race, religion, international relations, etc. However, many of the justifications given for imperial conquest at the time rested on ideas that would have appeared (and were claimed to be) progressive: ideas like the \"white man's burden\" of having an obligation to bring their ways of life to the \"savage\" peoples of the world, of spiritual salvation to others by spreading Christianity, etc.\n* **Foreign interventionism**: similarly, more modern shifts in which the West and particularly the United States has sought to pursue a more active foreign policy such as in Vietnam, Iraq or the support for the Arab Spring in countries like Libya came with a progressive justification of serving the global community, preventing the spread of authoritarianism and expanding the realm of liberal democracy, and yet many of us regard this today as having been shameful chapters of modern US history. In principle, the idea of stopping the spread of the USSR or toppling dictators such as Saddam Hussein or Colonel Gaddafi seems to square well with progressive visions of a better world for tomorrow - after all, I'm sure we can all regard intervention against powers like Nazi Germany and imperial Japan as having been just and beneficial - but the results of these other interventions were often massive bloodshed, instability, falling quality of life and a sense that the Western powers had vainly meddled in affairs they poorly understood and only succeeded in making things worse.\n* **Lenin, Stalin, Mao et al**: Marxism is fundamentally a progressive creed with a blueprint for a future better and more equitable than the present in which we live, but figures such as Stalin and Mao who pledged to realise these ambitions in government went on to commit some of the worst atrocities in modern history. In their minds, these were presumably not acts of wanton destruction or cruelty but rather necessary and just sacrifices that had to be made to advance their righteous cause.\n* **Eugenics**: Eugenics is by most of us today also indelibly associated with the Nazis and thus often categorised as an extremely conservative strain of thought, but once again it emerged as an alleged means of advancing the cause of humanity and improving our lives, with support from 'progressive' figures around the late 19th and early 20th centuries such as John Harvey Kellogg and Margaret Sanger, and opposition from institutions generally considered conservative such as the Catholic church, and associated traditional beliefs such as in the 'sanctity of life'.\n\nThese and other examples are all cases which have certainly ended up on the 'wrong side of history', that we look back on today as abhorrent, and yet which emerged with the same justification as behind any strain of thought we might deem progressive - i.e., progressing some feature of our lives and improving human society overall. We could of course question the sincerity of these actors' motivations - that the imperialists cared far more about gold and diamonds than about conversion, that despots like Stalin and Mao had no real attachment to Marxist ideals, etc. - but the same accusations can be levelled at anyone who cites some creed or other as their reason for supporting certain policies.\n\nIt seems to me then that trying to speculate about how future generations will view our actions or whether they will contribute to a historical tide of progress is not especially helpful, as awful policies can emerge from these kinds of goals just as easily as beneficial ones. This is not to argue that progress is a myth or that change is bad, and indeed there are many policies and causes today regarded as 'progressive' that I have support or at least sympathy for; it's merely to argue that change also isn't always good and that change and progress are not synonymous, and thus that phrases like the \"right\" or \"wrong\" side of history are unhelpful as they frame opposing change as more or less meaning to oppose what is good.\n\nCMV.",
"date": "2023-12-30",
"id": "18uriv3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 125,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The \"right/wrong side of history\" is not a helpful concept when considering which policies or creeds to support",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18uriv3/cmv_the_rightwrong_side_of_history_is_not_a/"
},
{
"author": "Loud-Temporary9774",
"body": "You’re on the wrong side when you’re harming people. There were people calling out your examples as harmful in real time. The people who said those events were on the right side of history were using the argument incorrectly.\n\nAnytime you need to introduce “the greater good” into your argument you shouldn’t be using the “right side of history” in your argument. You always have to play the greater good card when people are being are being materially harmed in the here and now.\n\nRight side/wrong side is helpful when it’s used correctly.",
"date": "2023-12-30",
"id": "kfmqdu2",
"parent_id": "18uriv3",
"score": 6,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "In_Pursuit_of_Fire",
"body": "Plenty of people who inflicted a lot of pain ended up on “the right side of history”",
"date": "2023-12-30",
"id": "kfn8qt3",
"parent_id": "kfmqdu2",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "forbiddenmemeories",
"body": "The \"right side of history\" and \"wrong side of history\" are phrases I've seen used a lot in recent years, and I don't think they're particularly helpful or illuminating. My main reason for this is that it creates a false dichotomy between people who are wedded to the status quo or convention and policies that uphold it, and people who want to bring about change; it also seems to suggest that striving for change is an inherently positive thing.\n\nIn practice, I think both much good and much bad has been done throughout history by people who viewed themselves as architects of progress. For example:\n\n* **Imperialism** we today regard as a shameful relic of a bygone bloodthirsty era and of antiquated attitudes on subjects like race, religion, international relations, etc. However, many of the justifications given for imperial conquest at the time rested on ideas that would have appeared (and were claimed to be) progressive: ideas like the \"white man's burden\" of having an obligation to bring their ways of life to the \"savage\" peoples of the world, of spiritual salvation to others by spreading Christianity, etc.\n* **Foreign interventionism**: similarly, more modern shifts in which the West and particularly the United States has sought to pursue a more active foreign policy such as in Vietnam, Iraq or the support for the Arab Spring in countries like Libya came with a progressive justification of serving the global community, preventing the spread of authoritarianism and expanding the realm of liberal democracy, and yet many of us regard this today as having been shameful chapters of modern US history. In principle, the idea of stopping the spread of the USSR or toppling dictators such as Saddam Hussein or Colonel Gaddafi seems to square well with progressive visions of a better world for tomorrow - after all, I'm sure we can all regard intervention against powers like Nazi Germany and imperial Japan as having been just and beneficial - but the results of these other interventions were often massive bloodshed, instability, falling quality of life and a sense that the Western powers had vainly meddled in affairs they poorly understood and only succeeded in making things worse.\n* **Lenin, Stalin, Mao et al**: Marxism is fundamentally a progressive creed with a blueprint for a future better and more equitable than the present in which we live, but figures such as Stalin and Mao who pledged to realise these ambitions in government went on to commit some of the worst atrocities in modern history. In their minds, these were presumably not acts of wanton destruction or cruelty but rather necessary and just sacrifices that had to be made to advance their righteous cause.\n* **Eugenics**: Eugenics is by most of us today also indelibly associated with the Nazis and thus often categorised as an extremely conservative strain of thought, but once again it emerged as an alleged means of advancing the cause of humanity and improving our lives, with support from 'progressive' figures around the late 19th and early 20th centuries such as John Harvey Kellogg and Margaret Sanger, and opposition from institutions generally considered conservative such as the Catholic church, and associated traditional beliefs such as in the 'sanctity of life'.\n\nThese and other examples are all cases which have certainly ended up on the 'wrong side of history', that we look back on today as abhorrent, and yet which emerged with the same justification as behind any strain of thought we might deem progressive - i.e., progressing some feature of our lives and improving human society overall. We could of course question the sincerity of these actors' motivations - that the imperialists cared far more about gold and diamonds than about conversion, that despots like Stalin and Mao had no real attachment to Marxist ideals, etc. - but the same accusations can be levelled at anyone who cites some creed or other as their reason for supporting certain policies.\n\nIt seems to me then that trying to speculate about how future generations will view our actions or whether they will contribute to a historical tide of progress is not especially helpful, as awful policies can emerge from these kinds of goals just as easily as beneficial ones. This is not to argue that progress is a myth or that change is bad, and indeed there are many policies and causes today regarded as 'progressive' that I have support or at least sympathy for; it's merely to argue that change also isn't always good and that change and progress are not synonymous, and thus that phrases like the \"right\" or \"wrong\" side of history are unhelpful as they frame opposing change as more or less meaning to oppose what is good.\n\nCMV.",
"date": "2023-12-30",
"id": "18uriv3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 125,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The \"right/wrong side of history\" is not a helpful concept when considering which policies or creeds to support",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18uriv3/cmv_the_rightwrong_side_of_history_is_not_a/"
},
{
"author": "zlefin_actual",
"body": "I find it somewhat useful; just because a lot of idiots misuse it doesn't mean one can't try to be rigorous and get some reasonable estimates out of it.\n\nI find the most useful cases to be ones with a strong and clear parallel to a relatively recent issue. For instance the parallels between some of the trans issues and gay rights. Or the similarities of Obergefell to Loving (the court cases).\n\nI don't think anyone is arguing that change is always good; it's that in some cases and on some topics there are fairly clear long-term trendlines if you look at the past several hundred years of ethical standards worldwide (especially in the last hundred), and that it's reasonable to expect some of those to continue.",
"date": "2023-12-30",
"id": "kfmxz32",
"parent_id": "18uriv3",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "forbiddenmemeories",
"body": "The \"right side of history\" and \"wrong side of history\" are phrases I've seen used a lot in recent years, and I don't think they're particularly helpful or illuminating. My main reason for this is that it creates a false dichotomy between people who are wedded to the status quo or convention and policies that uphold it, and people who want to bring about change; it also seems to suggest that striving for change is an inherently positive thing.\n\nIn practice, I think both much good and much bad has been done throughout history by people who viewed themselves as architects of progress. For example:\n\n* **Imperialism** we today regard as a shameful relic of a bygone bloodthirsty era and of antiquated attitudes on subjects like race, religion, international relations, etc. However, many of the justifications given for imperial conquest at the time rested on ideas that would have appeared (and were claimed to be) progressive: ideas like the \"white man's burden\" of having an obligation to bring their ways of life to the \"savage\" peoples of the world, of spiritual salvation to others by spreading Christianity, etc.\n* **Foreign interventionism**: similarly, more modern shifts in which the West and particularly the United States has sought to pursue a more active foreign policy such as in Vietnam, Iraq or the support for the Arab Spring in countries like Libya came with a progressive justification of serving the global community, preventing the spread of authoritarianism and expanding the realm of liberal democracy, and yet many of us regard this today as having been shameful chapters of modern US history. In principle, the idea of stopping the spread of the USSR or toppling dictators such as Saddam Hussein or Colonel Gaddafi seems to square well with progressive visions of a better world for tomorrow - after all, I'm sure we can all regard intervention against powers like Nazi Germany and imperial Japan as having been just and beneficial - but the results of these other interventions were often massive bloodshed, instability, falling quality of life and a sense that the Western powers had vainly meddled in affairs they poorly understood and only succeeded in making things worse.\n* **Lenin, Stalin, Mao et al**: Marxism is fundamentally a progressive creed with a blueprint for a future better and more equitable than the present in which we live, but figures such as Stalin and Mao who pledged to realise these ambitions in government went on to commit some of the worst atrocities in modern history. In their minds, these were presumably not acts of wanton destruction or cruelty but rather necessary and just sacrifices that had to be made to advance their righteous cause.\n* **Eugenics**: Eugenics is by most of us today also indelibly associated with the Nazis and thus often categorised as an extremely conservative strain of thought, but once again it emerged as an alleged means of advancing the cause of humanity and improving our lives, with support from 'progressive' figures around the late 19th and early 20th centuries such as John Harvey Kellogg and Margaret Sanger, and opposition from institutions generally considered conservative such as the Catholic church, and associated traditional beliefs such as in the 'sanctity of life'.\n\nThese and other examples are all cases which have certainly ended up on the 'wrong side of history', that we look back on today as abhorrent, and yet which emerged with the same justification as behind any strain of thought we might deem progressive - i.e., progressing some feature of our lives and improving human society overall. We could of course question the sincerity of these actors' motivations - that the imperialists cared far more about gold and diamonds than about conversion, that despots like Stalin and Mao had no real attachment to Marxist ideals, etc. - but the same accusations can be levelled at anyone who cites some creed or other as their reason for supporting certain policies.\n\nIt seems to me then that trying to speculate about how future generations will view our actions or whether they will contribute to a historical tide of progress is not especially helpful, as awful policies can emerge from these kinds of goals just as easily as beneficial ones. This is not to argue that progress is a myth or that change is bad, and indeed there are many policies and causes today regarded as 'progressive' that I have support or at least sympathy for; it's merely to argue that change also isn't always good and that change and progress are not synonymous, and thus that phrases like the \"right\" or \"wrong\" side of history are unhelpful as they frame opposing change as more or less meaning to oppose what is good.\n\nCMV.",
"date": "2023-12-30",
"id": "18uriv3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 125,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The \"right/wrong side of history\" is not a helpful concept when considering which policies or creeds to support",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18uriv3/cmv_the_rightwrong_side_of_history_is_not_a/"
},
{
"author": "hacksoncode",
"body": "Do you really think this is some kind of blanket statement that all possible changes are good? \n\nBecause to me, all that phrase (in the positive direction) means is \"This change will eventually happen, because it's a good change, and people will be embarrassed that it didn't happen sooner\". It's a shortcut for that sentence. \n\nI.e. it's a moral value judgement about a specific proposed change and the desirability of speeding it along. \n\n(the negative direction is basically the contrapositive of the positive one).",
"date": "2023-12-30",
"id": "kfmzlhf",
"parent_id": "18uriv3",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "forbiddenmemeories",
"body": "The \"right side of history\" and \"wrong side of history\" are phrases I've seen used a lot in recent years, and I don't think they're particularly helpful or illuminating. My main reason for this is that it creates a false dichotomy between people who are wedded to the status quo or convention and policies that uphold it, and people who want to bring about change; it also seems to suggest that striving for change is an inherently positive thing.\n\nIn practice, I think both much good and much bad has been done throughout history by people who viewed themselves as architects of progress. For example:\n\n* **Imperialism** we today regard as a shameful relic of a bygone bloodthirsty era and of antiquated attitudes on subjects like race, religion, international relations, etc. However, many of the justifications given for imperial conquest at the time rested on ideas that would have appeared (and were claimed to be) progressive: ideas like the \"white man's burden\" of having an obligation to bring their ways of life to the \"savage\" peoples of the world, of spiritual salvation to others by spreading Christianity, etc.\n* **Foreign interventionism**: similarly, more modern shifts in which the West and particularly the United States has sought to pursue a more active foreign policy such as in Vietnam, Iraq or the support for the Arab Spring in countries like Libya came with a progressive justification of serving the global community, preventing the spread of authoritarianism and expanding the realm of liberal democracy, and yet many of us regard this today as having been shameful chapters of modern US history. In principle, the idea of stopping the spread of the USSR or toppling dictators such as Saddam Hussein or Colonel Gaddafi seems to square well with progressive visions of a better world for tomorrow - after all, I'm sure we can all regard intervention against powers like Nazi Germany and imperial Japan as having been just and beneficial - but the results of these other interventions were often massive bloodshed, instability, falling quality of life and a sense that the Western powers had vainly meddled in affairs they poorly understood and only succeeded in making things worse.\n* **Lenin, Stalin, Mao et al**: Marxism is fundamentally a progressive creed with a blueprint for a future better and more equitable than the present in which we live, but figures such as Stalin and Mao who pledged to realise these ambitions in government went on to commit some of the worst atrocities in modern history. In their minds, these were presumably not acts of wanton destruction or cruelty but rather necessary and just sacrifices that had to be made to advance their righteous cause.\n* **Eugenics**: Eugenics is by most of us today also indelibly associated with the Nazis and thus often categorised as an extremely conservative strain of thought, but once again it emerged as an alleged means of advancing the cause of humanity and improving our lives, with support from 'progressive' figures around the late 19th and early 20th centuries such as John Harvey Kellogg and Margaret Sanger, and opposition from institutions generally considered conservative such as the Catholic church, and associated traditional beliefs such as in the 'sanctity of life'.\n\nThese and other examples are all cases which have certainly ended up on the 'wrong side of history', that we look back on today as abhorrent, and yet which emerged with the same justification as behind any strain of thought we might deem progressive - i.e., progressing some feature of our lives and improving human society overall. We could of course question the sincerity of these actors' motivations - that the imperialists cared far more about gold and diamonds than about conversion, that despots like Stalin and Mao had no real attachment to Marxist ideals, etc. - but the same accusations can be levelled at anyone who cites some creed or other as their reason for supporting certain policies.\n\nIt seems to me then that trying to speculate about how future generations will view our actions or whether they will contribute to a historical tide of progress is not especially helpful, as awful policies can emerge from these kinds of goals just as easily as beneficial ones. This is not to argue that progress is a myth or that change is bad, and indeed there are many policies and causes today regarded as 'progressive' that I have support or at least sympathy for; it's merely to argue that change also isn't always good and that change and progress are not synonymous, and thus that phrases like the \"right\" or \"wrong\" side of history are unhelpful as they frame opposing change as more or less meaning to oppose what is good.\n\nCMV.",
"date": "2023-12-30",
"id": "18uriv3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 125,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The \"right/wrong side of history\" is not a helpful concept when considering which policies or creeds to support",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18uriv3/cmv_the_rightwrong_side_of_history_is_not_a/"
},
{
"author": "SquidDrive",
"body": "Right side of history just means when this all plays out, the other side is right. Key point, abortion, conservatives celebrated the repealing of Roe v Wade, and pretended as though the logical consequences of banning such a procedure in States would not exist.\n\nWhat happened, year later, data comes out, oh wait more mothers, dead, more children, dead, more, more agonizing pregnancies due to delaying vital care due to fear of abortion law that's veingr repealed, and revoked, then reinstated practically other week.\n\nThe only thing that has come of it, is now there are more dead women due to pregnancy, more children born into unstable homes, and now live in a world where children as young as 10 can be raped, and have to travel to another state so they are not subjected to the agony of having a baby in a still developing body even ignoring all the inevitable trauma it brings.\n\nConservatives were told multiple times of the consequences, and they still pushed forward, and they had the nerve to call themselves pro life.\n\nWhen you support evil policy, because that's what these policies are, evil and lie about it's obvious consequences, you will be remembered on the wrong side of history, as a coward, as a liar, and, in this case. \n\nFrankly as fucking lunatics, who's only conception of God, is a fucking cross and gold platted assault rifle, and display blatant contempt and apathy for His children.",
"date": "2023-12-30",
"id": "kfnejsq",
"parent_id": "18uriv3",
"score": 8,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "forbiddenmemeories",
"body": "The \"right side of history\" and \"wrong side of history\" are phrases I've seen used a lot in recent years, and I don't think they're particularly helpful or illuminating. My main reason for this is that it creates a false dichotomy between people who are wedded to the status quo or convention and policies that uphold it, and people who want to bring about change; it also seems to suggest that striving for change is an inherently positive thing.\n\nIn practice, I think both much good and much bad has been done throughout history by people who viewed themselves as architects of progress. For example:\n\n* **Imperialism** we today regard as a shameful relic of a bygone bloodthirsty era and of antiquated attitudes on subjects like race, religion, international relations, etc. However, many of the justifications given for imperial conquest at the time rested on ideas that would have appeared (and were claimed to be) progressive: ideas like the \"white man's burden\" of having an obligation to bring their ways of life to the \"savage\" peoples of the world, of spiritual salvation to others by spreading Christianity, etc.\n* **Foreign interventionism**: similarly, more modern shifts in which the West and particularly the United States has sought to pursue a more active foreign policy such as in Vietnam, Iraq or the support for the Arab Spring in countries like Libya came with a progressive justification of serving the global community, preventing the spread of authoritarianism and expanding the realm of liberal democracy, and yet many of us regard this today as having been shameful chapters of modern US history. In principle, the idea of stopping the spread of the USSR or toppling dictators such as Saddam Hussein or Colonel Gaddafi seems to square well with progressive visions of a better world for tomorrow - after all, I'm sure we can all regard intervention against powers like Nazi Germany and imperial Japan as having been just and beneficial - but the results of these other interventions were often massive bloodshed, instability, falling quality of life and a sense that the Western powers had vainly meddled in affairs they poorly understood and only succeeded in making things worse.\n* **Lenin, Stalin, Mao et al**: Marxism is fundamentally a progressive creed with a blueprint for a future better and more equitable than the present in which we live, but figures such as Stalin and Mao who pledged to realise these ambitions in government went on to commit some of the worst atrocities in modern history. In their minds, these were presumably not acts of wanton destruction or cruelty but rather necessary and just sacrifices that had to be made to advance their righteous cause.\n* **Eugenics**: Eugenics is by most of us today also indelibly associated with the Nazis and thus often categorised as an extremely conservative strain of thought, but once again it emerged as an alleged means of advancing the cause of humanity and improving our lives, with support from 'progressive' figures around the late 19th and early 20th centuries such as John Harvey Kellogg and Margaret Sanger, and opposition from institutions generally considered conservative such as the Catholic church, and associated traditional beliefs such as in the 'sanctity of life'.\n\nThese and other examples are all cases which have certainly ended up on the 'wrong side of history', that we look back on today as abhorrent, and yet which emerged with the same justification as behind any strain of thought we might deem progressive - i.e., progressing some feature of our lives and improving human society overall. We could of course question the sincerity of these actors' motivations - that the imperialists cared far more about gold and diamonds than about conversion, that despots like Stalin and Mao had no real attachment to Marxist ideals, etc. - but the same accusations can be levelled at anyone who cites some creed or other as their reason for supporting certain policies.\n\nIt seems to me then that trying to speculate about how future generations will view our actions or whether they will contribute to a historical tide of progress is not especially helpful, as awful policies can emerge from these kinds of goals just as easily as beneficial ones. This is not to argue that progress is a myth or that change is bad, and indeed there are many policies and causes today regarded as 'progressive' that I have support or at least sympathy for; it's merely to argue that change also isn't always good and that change and progress are not synonymous, and thus that phrases like the \"right\" or \"wrong\" side of history are unhelpful as they frame opposing change as more or less meaning to oppose what is good.\n\nCMV.",
"date": "2023-12-30",
"id": "18uriv3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 125,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The \"right/wrong side of history\" is not a helpful concept when considering which policies or creeds to support",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18uriv3/cmv_the_rightwrong_side_of_history_is_not_a/"
},
{
"author": "No_Scarcity8249",
"body": "It means we will eventually regret it. That’s it. Hindsight.",
"date": "2023-12-30",
"id": "kfnkxdu",
"parent_id": "18uriv3",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "forbiddenmemeories",
"body": "The \"right side of history\" and \"wrong side of history\" are phrases I've seen used a lot in recent years, and I don't think they're particularly helpful or illuminating. My main reason for this is that it creates a false dichotomy between people who are wedded to the status quo or convention and policies that uphold it, and people who want to bring about change; it also seems to suggest that striving for change is an inherently positive thing.\n\nIn practice, I think both much good and much bad has been done throughout history by people who viewed themselves as architects of progress. For example:\n\n* **Imperialism** we today regard as a shameful relic of a bygone bloodthirsty era and of antiquated attitudes on subjects like race, religion, international relations, etc. However, many of the justifications given for imperial conquest at the time rested on ideas that would have appeared (and were claimed to be) progressive: ideas like the \"white man's burden\" of having an obligation to bring their ways of life to the \"savage\" peoples of the world, of spiritual salvation to others by spreading Christianity, etc.\n* **Foreign interventionism**: similarly, more modern shifts in which the West and particularly the United States has sought to pursue a more active foreign policy such as in Vietnam, Iraq or the support for the Arab Spring in countries like Libya came with a progressive justification of serving the global community, preventing the spread of authoritarianism and expanding the realm of liberal democracy, and yet many of us regard this today as having been shameful chapters of modern US history. In principle, the idea of stopping the spread of the USSR or toppling dictators such as Saddam Hussein or Colonel Gaddafi seems to square well with progressive visions of a better world for tomorrow - after all, I'm sure we can all regard intervention against powers like Nazi Germany and imperial Japan as having been just and beneficial - but the results of these other interventions were often massive bloodshed, instability, falling quality of life and a sense that the Western powers had vainly meddled in affairs they poorly understood and only succeeded in making things worse.\n* **Lenin, Stalin, Mao et al**: Marxism is fundamentally a progressive creed with a blueprint for a future better and more equitable than the present in which we live, but figures such as Stalin and Mao who pledged to realise these ambitions in government went on to commit some of the worst atrocities in modern history. In their minds, these were presumably not acts of wanton destruction or cruelty but rather necessary and just sacrifices that had to be made to advance their righteous cause.\n* **Eugenics**: Eugenics is by most of us today also indelibly associated with the Nazis and thus often categorised as an extremely conservative strain of thought, but once again it emerged as an alleged means of advancing the cause of humanity and improving our lives, with support from 'progressive' figures around the late 19th and early 20th centuries such as John Harvey Kellogg and Margaret Sanger, and opposition from institutions generally considered conservative such as the Catholic church, and associated traditional beliefs such as in the 'sanctity of life'.\n\nThese and other examples are all cases which have certainly ended up on the 'wrong side of history', that we look back on today as abhorrent, and yet which emerged with the same justification as behind any strain of thought we might deem progressive - i.e., progressing some feature of our lives and improving human society overall. We could of course question the sincerity of these actors' motivations - that the imperialists cared far more about gold and diamonds than about conversion, that despots like Stalin and Mao had no real attachment to Marxist ideals, etc. - but the same accusations can be levelled at anyone who cites some creed or other as their reason for supporting certain policies.\n\nIt seems to me then that trying to speculate about how future generations will view our actions or whether they will contribute to a historical tide of progress is not especially helpful, as awful policies can emerge from these kinds of goals just as easily as beneficial ones. This is not to argue that progress is a myth or that change is bad, and indeed there are many policies and causes today regarded as 'progressive' that I have support or at least sympathy for; it's merely to argue that change also isn't always good and that change and progress are not synonymous, and thus that phrases like the \"right\" or \"wrong\" side of history are unhelpful as they frame opposing change as more or less meaning to oppose what is good.\n\nCMV.",
"date": "2023-12-30",
"id": "18uriv3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 125,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The \"right/wrong side of history\" is not a helpful concept when considering which policies or creeds to support",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18uriv3/cmv_the_rightwrong_side_of_history_is_not_a/"
},
{
"author": "BitcoinMD",
"body": "When people say that they don’t actually mean that whatever happens in the future will be inherently good. It’s a shorthand reference to the fact that history tends to go in the direction of greater justice and inclusion, so if you find yourself taking the side of bigotry, you should be aware that your stance might not age well.",
"date": "2023-12-30",
"id": "kfnnz4a",
"parent_id": "18uriv3",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "NimrookFanClub",
"body": "https://www.newsweek.com/black-lives-matter-praises-hamas-sparks-backlash-1833630",
"date": "2023-12-31",
"id": "kfqwbo1",
"parent_id": "kfnnz4a",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "forbiddenmemeories",
"body": "The \"right side of history\" and \"wrong side of history\" are phrases I've seen used a lot in recent years, and I don't think they're particularly helpful or illuminating. My main reason for this is that it creates a false dichotomy between people who are wedded to the status quo or convention and policies that uphold it, and people who want to bring about change; it also seems to suggest that striving for change is an inherently positive thing.\n\nIn practice, I think both much good and much bad has been done throughout history by people who viewed themselves as architects of progress. For example:\n\n* **Imperialism** we today regard as a shameful relic of a bygone bloodthirsty era and of antiquated attitudes on subjects like race, religion, international relations, etc. However, many of the justifications given for imperial conquest at the time rested on ideas that would have appeared (and were claimed to be) progressive: ideas like the \"white man's burden\" of having an obligation to bring their ways of life to the \"savage\" peoples of the world, of spiritual salvation to others by spreading Christianity, etc.\n* **Foreign interventionism**: similarly, more modern shifts in which the West and particularly the United States has sought to pursue a more active foreign policy such as in Vietnam, Iraq or the support for the Arab Spring in countries like Libya came with a progressive justification of serving the global community, preventing the spread of authoritarianism and expanding the realm of liberal democracy, and yet many of us regard this today as having been shameful chapters of modern US history. In principle, the idea of stopping the spread of the USSR or toppling dictators such as Saddam Hussein or Colonel Gaddafi seems to square well with progressive visions of a better world for tomorrow - after all, I'm sure we can all regard intervention against powers like Nazi Germany and imperial Japan as having been just and beneficial - but the results of these other interventions were often massive bloodshed, instability, falling quality of life and a sense that the Western powers had vainly meddled in affairs they poorly understood and only succeeded in making things worse.\n* **Lenin, Stalin, Mao et al**: Marxism is fundamentally a progressive creed with a blueprint for a future better and more equitable than the present in which we live, but figures such as Stalin and Mao who pledged to realise these ambitions in government went on to commit some of the worst atrocities in modern history. In their minds, these were presumably not acts of wanton destruction or cruelty but rather necessary and just sacrifices that had to be made to advance their righteous cause.\n* **Eugenics**: Eugenics is by most of us today also indelibly associated with the Nazis and thus often categorised as an extremely conservative strain of thought, but once again it emerged as an alleged means of advancing the cause of humanity and improving our lives, with support from 'progressive' figures around the late 19th and early 20th centuries such as John Harvey Kellogg and Margaret Sanger, and opposition from institutions generally considered conservative such as the Catholic church, and associated traditional beliefs such as in the 'sanctity of life'.\n\nThese and other examples are all cases which have certainly ended up on the 'wrong side of history', that we look back on today as abhorrent, and yet which emerged with the same justification as behind any strain of thought we might deem progressive - i.e., progressing some feature of our lives and improving human society overall. We could of course question the sincerity of these actors' motivations - that the imperialists cared far more about gold and diamonds than about conversion, that despots like Stalin and Mao had no real attachment to Marxist ideals, etc. - but the same accusations can be levelled at anyone who cites some creed or other as their reason for supporting certain policies.\n\nIt seems to me then that trying to speculate about how future generations will view our actions or whether they will contribute to a historical tide of progress is not especially helpful, as awful policies can emerge from these kinds of goals just as easily as beneficial ones. This is not to argue that progress is a myth or that change is bad, and indeed there are many policies and causes today regarded as 'progressive' that I have support or at least sympathy for; it's merely to argue that change also isn't always good and that change and progress are not synonymous, and thus that phrases like the \"right\" or \"wrong\" side of history are unhelpful as they frame opposing change as more or less meaning to oppose what is good.\n\nCMV.",
"date": "2023-12-30",
"id": "18uriv3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 125,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The \"right/wrong side of history\" is not a helpful concept when considering which policies or creeds to support",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18uriv3/cmv_the_rightwrong_side_of_history_is_not_a/"
},
{
"author": "coopere20",
"body": "Many wrongs have been committed with good intentions and misguidance.",
"date": "2023-12-31",
"id": "kfo4bvg",
"parent_id": "18uriv3",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "forbiddenmemeories",
"body": "The \"right side of history\" and \"wrong side of history\" are phrases I've seen used a lot in recent years, and I don't think they're particularly helpful or illuminating. My main reason for this is that it creates a false dichotomy between people who are wedded to the status quo or convention and policies that uphold it, and people who want to bring about change; it also seems to suggest that striving for change is an inherently positive thing.\n\nIn practice, I think both much good and much bad has been done throughout history by people who viewed themselves as architects of progress. For example:\n\n* **Imperialism** we today regard as a shameful relic of a bygone bloodthirsty era and of antiquated attitudes on subjects like race, religion, international relations, etc. However, many of the justifications given for imperial conquest at the time rested on ideas that would have appeared (and were claimed to be) progressive: ideas like the \"white man's burden\" of having an obligation to bring their ways of life to the \"savage\" peoples of the world, of spiritual salvation to others by spreading Christianity, etc.\n* **Foreign interventionism**: similarly, more modern shifts in which the West and particularly the United States has sought to pursue a more active foreign policy such as in Vietnam, Iraq or the support for the Arab Spring in countries like Libya came with a progressive justification of serving the global community, preventing the spread of authoritarianism and expanding the realm of liberal democracy, and yet many of us regard this today as having been shameful chapters of modern US history. In principle, the idea of stopping the spread of the USSR or toppling dictators such as Saddam Hussein or Colonel Gaddafi seems to square well with progressive visions of a better world for tomorrow - after all, I'm sure we can all regard intervention against powers like Nazi Germany and imperial Japan as having been just and beneficial - but the results of these other interventions were often massive bloodshed, instability, falling quality of life and a sense that the Western powers had vainly meddled in affairs they poorly understood and only succeeded in making things worse.\n* **Lenin, Stalin, Mao et al**: Marxism is fundamentally a progressive creed with a blueprint for a future better and more equitable than the present in which we live, but figures such as Stalin and Mao who pledged to realise these ambitions in government went on to commit some of the worst atrocities in modern history. In their minds, these were presumably not acts of wanton destruction or cruelty but rather necessary and just sacrifices that had to be made to advance their righteous cause.\n* **Eugenics**: Eugenics is by most of us today also indelibly associated with the Nazis and thus often categorised as an extremely conservative strain of thought, but once again it emerged as an alleged means of advancing the cause of humanity and improving our lives, with support from 'progressive' figures around the late 19th and early 20th centuries such as John Harvey Kellogg and Margaret Sanger, and opposition from institutions generally considered conservative such as the Catholic church, and associated traditional beliefs such as in the 'sanctity of life'.\n\nThese and other examples are all cases which have certainly ended up on the 'wrong side of history', that we look back on today as abhorrent, and yet which emerged with the same justification as behind any strain of thought we might deem progressive - i.e., progressing some feature of our lives and improving human society overall. We could of course question the sincerity of these actors' motivations - that the imperialists cared far more about gold and diamonds than about conversion, that despots like Stalin and Mao had no real attachment to Marxist ideals, etc. - but the same accusations can be levelled at anyone who cites some creed or other as their reason for supporting certain policies.\n\nIt seems to me then that trying to speculate about how future generations will view our actions or whether they will contribute to a historical tide of progress is not especially helpful, as awful policies can emerge from these kinds of goals just as easily as beneficial ones. This is not to argue that progress is a myth or that change is bad, and indeed there are many policies and causes today regarded as 'progressive' that I have support or at least sympathy for; it's merely to argue that change also isn't always good and that change and progress are not synonymous, and thus that phrases like the \"right\" or \"wrong\" side of history are unhelpful as they frame opposing change as more or less meaning to oppose what is good.\n\nCMV.",
"date": "2023-12-30",
"id": "18uriv3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 125,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The \"right/wrong side of history\" is not a helpful concept when considering which policies or creeds to support",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18uriv3/cmv_the_rightwrong_side_of_history_is_not_a/"
},
{
"author": "McTitty3000",
"body": "History is written by the winners, so being on \"the wrong side of History\" implies that these people are going to win whatever battle they're staging or that you have to beat them",
"date": "2023-12-31",
"id": "kfo6uh9",
"parent_id": "18uriv3",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "forbiddenmemeories",
"body": "The \"right side of history\" and \"wrong side of history\" are phrases I've seen used a lot in recent years, and I don't think they're particularly helpful or illuminating. My main reason for this is that it creates a false dichotomy between people who are wedded to the status quo or convention and policies that uphold it, and people who want to bring about change; it also seems to suggest that striving for change is an inherently positive thing.\n\nIn practice, I think both much good and much bad has been done throughout history by people who viewed themselves as architects of progress. For example:\n\n* **Imperialism** we today regard as a shameful relic of a bygone bloodthirsty era and of antiquated attitudes on subjects like race, religion, international relations, etc. However, many of the justifications given for imperial conquest at the time rested on ideas that would have appeared (and were claimed to be) progressive: ideas like the \"white man's burden\" of having an obligation to bring their ways of life to the \"savage\" peoples of the world, of spiritual salvation to others by spreading Christianity, etc.\n* **Foreign interventionism**: similarly, more modern shifts in which the West and particularly the United States has sought to pursue a more active foreign policy such as in Vietnam, Iraq or the support for the Arab Spring in countries like Libya came with a progressive justification of serving the global community, preventing the spread of authoritarianism and expanding the realm of liberal democracy, and yet many of us regard this today as having been shameful chapters of modern US history. In principle, the idea of stopping the spread of the USSR or toppling dictators such as Saddam Hussein or Colonel Gaddafi seems to square well with progressive visions of a better world for tomorrow - after all, I'm sure we can all regard intervention against powers like Nazi Germany and imperial Japan as having been just and beneficial - but the results of these other interventions were often massive bloodshed, instability, falling quality of life and a sense that the Western powers had vainly meddled in affairs they poorly understood and only succeeded in making things worse.\n* **Lenin, Stalin, Mao et al**: Marxism is fundamentally a progressive creed with a blueprint for a future better and more equitable than the present in which we live, but figures such as Stalin and Mao who pledged to realise these ambitions in government went on to commit some of the worst atrocities in modern history. In their minds, these were presumably not acts of wanton destruction or cruelty but rather necessary and just sacrifices that had to be made to advance their righteous cause.\n* **Eugenics**: Eugenics is by most of us today also indelibly associated with the Nazis and thus often categorised as an extremely conservative strain of thought, but once again it emerged as an alleged means of advancing the cause of humanity and improving our lives, with support from 'progressive' figures around the late 19th and early 20th centuries such as John Harvey Kellogg and Margaret Sanger, and opposition from institutions generally considered conservative such as the Catholic church, and associated traditional beliefs such as in the 'sanctity of life'.\n\nThese and other examples are all cases which have certainly ended up on the 'wrong side of history', that we look back on today as abhorrent, and yet which emerged with the same justification as behind any strain of thought we might deem progressive - i.e., progressing some feature of our lives and improving human society overall. We could of course question the sincerity of these actors' motivations - that the imperialists cared far more about gold and diamonds than about conversion, that despots like Stalin and Mao had no real attachment to Marxist ideals, etc. - but the same accusations can be levelled at anyone who cites some creed or other as their reason for supporting certain policies.\n\nIt seems to me then that trying to speculate about how future generations will view our actions or whether they will contribute to a historical tide of progress is not especially helpful, as awful policies can emerge from these kinds of goals just as easily as beneficial ones. This is not to argue that progress is a myth or that change is bad, and indeed there are many policies and causes today regarded as 'progressive' that I have support or at least sympathy for; it's merely to argue that change also isn't always good and that change and progress are not synonymous, and thus that phrases like the \"right\" or \"wrong\" side of history are unhelpful as they frame opposing change as more or less meaning to oppose what is good.\n\nCMV.",
"date": "2023-12-30",
"id": "18uriv3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 125,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The \"right/wrong side of history\" is not a helpful concept when considering which policies or creeds to support",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18uriv3/cmv_the_rightwrong_side_of_history_is_not_a/"
},
{
"author": "Viciuniversum",
"body": "That’s because the purpose of this phrase is to not to evaluate the morality of historical action, but to sway one to one, very specific view. The entire concept of “right dude of history” originated with Karl Marx's historical materialism and his idea of the inevitable victory of communism over capitalism. \nIn Marxist theory, history is seen as a series of class struggles, culminating in the overthrow of capitalism by the proletariat, leading to a communist society. This theory posits that the internal contradictions within capitalism would eventually lead to its own demise and the rise of communism. Therefore in Marxist thinking the rise of communism seen as an inevitable outcome of historical processes, aka Marxism is on “the right side of history.”",
"date": "2023-12-31",
"id": "kfo6yd8",
"parent_id": "18uriv3",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "forbiddenmemeories",
"body": "The \"right side of history\" and \"wrong side of history\" are phrases I've seen used a lot in recent years, and I don't think they're particularly helpful or illuminating. My main reason for this is that it creates a false dichotomy between people who are wedded to the status quo or convention and policies that uphold it, and people who want to bring about change; it also seems to suggest that striving for change is an inherently positive thing.\n\nIn practice, I think both much good and much bad has been done throughout history by people who viewed themselves as architects of progress. For example:\n\n* **Imperialism** we today regard as a shameful relic of a bygone bloodthirsty era and of antiquated attitudes on subjects like race, religion, international relations, etc. However, many of the justifications given for imperial conquest at the time rested on ideas that would have appeared (and were claimed to be) progressive: ideas like the \"white man's burden\" of having an obligation to bring their ways of life to the \"savage\" peoples of the world, of spiritual salvation to others by spreading Christianity, etc.\n* **Foreign interventionism**: similarly, more modern shifts in which the West and particularly the United States has sought to pursue a more active foreign policy such as in Vietnam, Iraq or the support for the Arab Spring in countries like Libya came with a progressive justification of serving the global community, preventing the spread of authoritarianism and expanding the realm of liberal democracy, and yet many of us regard this today as having been shameful chapters of modern US history. In principle, the idea of stopping the spread of the USSR or toppling dictators such as Saddam Hussein or Colonel Gaddafi seems to square well with progressive visions of a better world for tomorrow - after all, I'm sure we can all regard intervention against powers like Nazi Germany and imperial Japan as having been just and beneficial - but the results of these other interventions were often massive bloodshed, instability, falling quality of life and a sense that the Western powers had vainly meddled in affairs they poorly understood and only succeeded in making things worse.\n* **Lenin, Stalin, Mao et al**: Marxism is fundamentally a progressive creed with a blueprint for a future better and more equitable than the present in which we live, but figures such as Stalin and Mao who pledged to realise these ambitions in government went on to commit some of the worst atrocities in modern history. In their minds, these were presumably not acts of wanton destruction or cruelty but rather necessary and just sacrifices that had to be made to advance their righteous cause.\n* **Eugenics**: Eugenics is by most of us today also indelibly associated with the Nazis and thus often categorised as an extremely conservative strain of thought, but once again it emerged as an alleged means of advancing the cause of humanity and improving our lives, with support from 'progressive' figures around the late 19th and early 20th centuries such as John Harvey Kellogg and Margaret Sanger, and opposition from institutions generally considered conservative such as the Catholic church, and associated traditional beliefs such as in the 'sanctity of life'.\n\nThese and other examples are all cases which have certainly ended up on the 'wrong side of history', that we look back on today as abhorrent, and yet which emerged with the same justification as behind any strain of thought we might deem progressive - i.e., progressing some feature of our lives and improving human society overall. We could of course question the sincerity of these actors' motivations - that the imperialists cared far more about gold and diamonds than about conversion, that despots like Stalin and Mao had no real attachment to Marxist ideals, etc. - but the same accusations can be levelled at anyone who cites some creed or other as their reason for supporting certain policies.\n\nIt seems to me then that trying to speculate about how future generations will view our actions or whether they will contribute to a historical tide of progress is not especially helpful, as awful policies can emerge from these kinds of goals just as easily as beneficial ones. This is not to argue that progress is a myth or that change is bad, and indeed there are many policies and causes today regarded as 'progressive' that I have support or at least sympathy for; it's merely to argue that change also isn't always good and that change and progress are not synonymous, and thus that phrases like the \"right\" or \"wrong\" side of history are unhelpful as they frame opposing change as more or less meaning to oppose what is good.\n\nCMV.",
"date": "2023-12-30",
"id": "18uriv3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 125,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The \"right/wrong side of history\" is not a helpful concept when considering which policies or creeds to support",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18uriv3/cmv_the_rightwrong_side_of_history_is_not_a/"
},
{
"author": "PinPinnson",
"body": "It's (afaiu) basically a rhetorical label. The thing it's \"pointing to\" is a concept of \"moral progress\" (*not* just any politics labeled \"progressive\"; at least in my maybe-overly-charitable setup here). The idea that our moral systems themselves (not just pplitical policies) change over time, in a (theoretically) better way.\n\nOne example is the idea of \"[moral circle expansion](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_circle_expansion)\". We start by caring about ourselves and close family, then tribe, then larger groups like villages, then nations, then potentially all humanity, then potentially sentient animals, etc.",
"date": "2023-12-31",
"id": "kfoath4",
"parent_id": "18uriv3",
"score": 4,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "forbiddenmemeories",
"body": "The \"right side of history\" and \"wrong side of history\" are phrases I've seen used a lot in recent years, and I don't think they're particularly helpful or illuminating. My main reason for this is that it creates a false dichotomy between people who are wedded to the status quo or convention and policies that uphold it, and people who want to bring about change; it also seems to suggest that striving for change is an inherently positive thing.\n\nIn practice, I think both much good and much bad has been done throughout history by people who viewed themselves as architects of progress. For example:\n\n* **Imperialism** we today regard as a shameful relic of a bygone bloodthirsty era and of antiquated attitudes on subjects like race, religion, international relations, etc. However, many of the justifications given for imperial conquest at the time rested on ideas that would have appeared (and were claimed to be) progressive: ideas like the \"white man's burden\" of having an obligation to bring their ways of life to the \"savage\" peoples of the world, of spiritual salvation to others by spreading Christianity, etc.\n* **Foreign interventionism**: similarly, more modern shifts in which the West and particularly the United States has sought to pursue a more active foreign policy such as in Vietnam, Iraq or the support for the Arab Spring in countries like Libya came with a progressive justification of serving the global community, preventing the spread of authoritarianism and expanding the realm of liberal democracy, and yet many of us regard this today as having been shameful chapters of modern US history. In principle, the idea of stopping the spread of the USSR or toppling dictators such as Saddam Hussein or Colonel Gaddafi seems to square well with progressive visions of a better world for tomorrow - after all, I'm sure we can all regard intervention against powers like Nazi Germany and imperial Japan as having been just and beneficial - but the results of these other interventions were often massive bloodshed, instability, falling quality of life and a sense that the Western powers had vainly meddled in affairs they poorly understood and only succeeded in making things worse.\n* **Lenin, Stalin, Mao et al**: Marxism is fundamentally a progressive creed with a blueprint for a future better and more equitable than the present in which we live, but figures such as Stalin and Mao who pledged to realise these ambitions in government went on to commit some of the worst atrocities in modern history. In their minds, these were presumably not acts of wanton destruction or cruelty but rather necessary and just sacrifices that had to be made to advance their righteous cause.\n* **Eugenics**: Eugenics is by most of us today also indelibly associated with the Nazis and thus often categorised as an extremely conservative strain of thought, but once again it emerged as an alleged means of advancing the cause of humanity and improving our lives, with support from 'progressive' figures around the late 19th and early 20th centuries such as John Harvey Kellogg and Margaret Sanger, and opposition from institutions generally considered conservative such as the Catholic church, and associated traditional beliefs such as in the 'sanctity of life'.\n\nThese and other examples are all cases which have certainly ended up on the 'wrong side of history', that we look back on today as abhorrent, and yet which emerged with the same justification as behind any strain of thought we might deem progressive - i.e., progressing some feature of our lives and improving human society overall. We could of course question the sincerity of these actors' motivations - that the imperialists cared far more about gold and diamonds than about conversion, that despots like Stalin and Mao had no real attachment to Marxist ideals, etc. - but the same accusations can be levelled at anyone who cites some creed or other as their reason for supporting certain policies.\n\nIt seems to me then that trying to speculate about how future generations will view our actions or whether they will contribute to a historical tide of progress is not especially helpful, as awful policies can emerge from these kinds of goals just as easily as beneficial ones. This is not to argue that progress is a myth or that change is bad, and indeed there are many policies and causes today regarded as 'progressive' that I have support or at least sympathy for; it's merely to argue that change also isn't always good and that change and progress are not synonymous, and thus that phrases like the \"right\" or \"wrong\" side of history are unhelpful as they frame opposing change as more or less meaning to oppose what is good.\n\nCMV.",
"date": "2023-12-30",
"id": "18uriv3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 125,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The \"right/wrong side of history\" is not a helpful concept when considering which policies or creeds to support",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18uriv3/cmv_the_rightwrong_side_of_history_is_not_a/"
},
{
"author": "hungariannastyboy",
"body": "Neither imperialism nor foreign interventions in general have, in most instances, been based on the things you mention there, those are just ex post facto excuses and/or things the average person who didn't know any better espoused. Empire-building wasn't about \"white man's burden\" nor were Middle Eastern interventions about \"spreading democracy\" - they were about geopolitical interests (guaranteeing access to resources, safeguarding trade routes, frustrating the expansion of geopolitical rivals' interests). So, not the best examples for sure.",
"date": "2023-12-31",
"id": "kfole7a",
"parent_id": "18uriv3",
"score": 5,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "forbiddenmemeories",
"body": "The \"right side of history\" and \"wrong side of history\" are phrases I've seen used a lot in recent years, and I don't think they're particularly helpful or illuminating. My main reason for this is that it creates a false dichotomy between people who are wedded to the status quo or convention and policies that uphold it, and people who want to bring about change; it also seems to suggest that striving for change is an inherently positive thing.\n\nIn practice, I think both much good and much bad has been done throughout history by people who viewed themselves as architects of progress. For example:\n\n* **Imperialism** we today regard as a shameful relic of a bygone bloodthirsty era and of antiquated attitudes on subjects like race, religion, international relations, etc. However, many of the justifications given for imperial conquest at the time rested on ideas that would have appeared (and were claimed to be) progressive: ideas like the \"white man's burden\" of having an obligation to bring their ways of life to the \"savage\" peoples of the world, of spiritual salvation to others by spreading Christianity, etc.\n* **Foreign interventionism**: similarly, more modern shifts in which the West and particularly the United States has sought to pursue a more active foreign policy such as in Vietnam, Iraq or the support for the Arab Spring in countries like Libya came with a progressive justification of serving the global community, preventing the spread of authoritarianism and expanding the realm of liberal democracy, and yet many of us regard this today as having been shameful chapters of modern US history. In principle, the idea of stopping the spread of the USSR or toppling dictators such as Saddam Hussein or Colonel Gaddafi seems to square well with progressive visions of a better world for tomorrow - after all, I'm sure we can all regard intervention against powers like Nazi Germany and imperial Japan as having been just and beneficial - but the results of these other interventions were often massive bloodshed, instability, falling quality of life and a sense that the Western powers had vainly meddled in affairs they poorly understood and only succeeded in making things worse.\n* **Lenin, Stalin, Mao et al**: Marxism is fundamentally a progressive creed with a blueprint for a future better and more equitable than the present in which we live, but figures such as Stalin and Mao who pledged to realise these ambitions in government went on to commit some of the worst atrocities in modern history. In their minds, these were presumably not acts of wanton destruction or cruelty but rather necessary and just sacrifices that had to be made to advance their righteous cause.\n* **Eugenics**: Eugenics is by most of us today also indelibly associated with the Nazis and thus often categorised as an extremely conservative strain of thought, but once again it emerged as an alleged means of advancing the cause of humanity and improving our lives, with support from 'progressive' figures around the late 19th and early 20th centuries such as John Harvey Kellogg and Margaret Sanger, and opposition from institutions generally considered conservative such as the Catholic church, and associated traditional beliefs such as in the 'sanctity of life'.\n\nThese and other examples are all cases which have certainly ended up on the 'wrong side of history', that we look back on today as abhorrent, and yet which emerged with the same justification as behind any strain of thought we might deem progressive - i.e., progressing some feature of our lives and improving human society overall. We could of course question the sincerity of these actors' motivations - that the imperialists cared far more about gold and diamonds than about conversion, that despots like Stalin and Mao had no real attachment to Marxist ideals, etc. - but the same accusations can be levelled at anyone who cites some creed or other as their reason for supporting certain policies.\n\nIt seems to me then that trying to speculate about how future generations will view our actions or whether they will contribute to a historical tide of progress is not especially helpful, as awful policies can emerge from these kinds of goals just as easily as beneficial ones. This is not to argue that progress is a myth or that change is bad, and indeed there are many policies and causes today regarded as 'progressive' that I have support or at least sympathy for; it's merely to argue that change also isn't always good and that change and progress are not synonymous, and thus that phrases like the \"right\" or \"wrong\" side of history are unhelpful as they frame opposing change as more or less meaning to oppose what is good.\n\nCMV.",
"date": "2023-12-30",
"id": "18uriv3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 125,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The \"right/wrong side of history\" is not a helpful concept when considering which policies or creeds to support",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18uriv3/cmv_the_rightwrong_side_of_history_is_not_a/"
},
{
"author": "Teddy_Funsisco",
"body": "I think your initial premise is correct, but the explanation doesn't mean anything to the people you want to convince. \n\nTo me, the right/wrong side of history argument doesn't mean anything because people aren't thinking that far into the future when they're dead and can't be directly judged for their actions now, they only care about immediate results.",
"date": "2023-12-31",
"id": "kfq8l5u",
"parent_id": "18uriv3",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
]
]
| moderate |
[
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": "We regularly see 3 hour long movies in theater nowadays like new The killer of the flower moon.\n\nMovie theaters should offer a split tickets where you buy a ticket and get to see Part A and Part B with short 5 minute intermission between those.\n\nBut if you can only manage to focus on 1,5 hour experience you only use ticket to part A and come tomorrow to watch part B. Or if you want to sit on movie theater for 3 hours straight without bathroom break you can do it (or have 5 minute bathroom break at intermission).\n\nMovie goers would benefit from it with extended freedom and movie theaters would benefit from it by having opportunity to sell more popcorn during intermission.",
"date": "2024-01-11",
"id": "1940ojb",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 89,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Movies lasting 3 or more hours should offer split tickets with intermission",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1940ojb/cmv_movies_lasting_3_or_more_hours_should_offer/"
},
{
"author": "t_sarkkinen",
"body": ">But if you can only manage to focus on 1,5 hour experience you only use ticket to part A and come tomorrow to watch part B.\n\nWhat happens, when half the theater wants to come back tomorrow to watch part B? Do they reserve the entire theater, just for them? Do they sell the remaining half of the tickets for that showing? If theres only a day in between, how would they ensure that it doesnt get overbooked etc etc?\n\n>Or if you want to sit on movie theater for 3 hours straight without bathroom break you can do it (or have 5 minute bathroom break at intermission).\n\n5 minutes is nowhere near enough, at least at my local movie theater it wouldnt be. What if they have multiple long showings, and they happen to have a break at the same time? And to get popcorn too? It would take like 20 minutes at minimum for all the people to go to the bathroom, get popcorn and return to their seats.\n\nHow long would the movie have to be to get split/have a break?\n\nAn intermission could work, but there are still things to work out.\n\nIMO, if you cant handle a long movie, its your problem. Dont go and see it at the movies, wait for the DVD/streaming release.",
"date": "2024-01-11",
"id": "khctbud",
"parent_id": "1940ojb",
"score": 45,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": ">What happens, when half the theater wants to come back tomorrow to watch part B? Do they reserve the entire theater, just for them? Do they sell the remaining half of the tickets for that showing? If theres only a day in between, how would they ensure that it doesnt get overbooked etc etc?\n\n!delta. Logistics of this would be difficult. \nYou would be better off just selling two different tickets to two different shows but this wouldn't allow impromptu decision making. You would have know before hand if you want to walk away.",
"date": "2024-01-11",
"id": "khctmcx",
"parent_id": "khctbud",
"score": 12,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "DeltaBot",
"body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/t_sarkkinen ([1∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/t_sarkkinen)).\n\n^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
"date": "2024-01-11",
"id": "khctqlf",
"parent_id": "khctmcx",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
]
| [
[
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": "We regularly see 3 hour long movies in theater nowadays like new The killer of the flower moon.\n\nMovie theaters should offer a split tickets where you buy a ticket and get to see Part A and Part B with short 5 minute intermission between those.\n\nBut if you can only manage to focus on 1,5 hour experience you only use ticket to part A and come tomorrow to watch part B. Or if you want to sit on movie theater for 3 hours straight without bathroom break you can do it (or have 5 minute bathroom break at intermission).\n\nMovie goers would benefit from it with extended freedom and movie theaters would benefit from it by having opportunity to sell more popcorn during intermission.",
"date": "2024-01-11",
"id": "1940ojb",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 89,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Movies lasting 3 or more hours should offer split tickets with intermission",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1940ojb/cmv_movies_lasting_3_or_more_hours_should_offer/"
},
{
"author": "NoAside5523",
"body": "Its a cool idea, but I have to imagine it would be ripe for abuse. Unless you want to empty the theater between showings, it would be very easy to just buy a ticket for part A and then just not leave for part B. In practice some people already do this -- scan a ticket for a movie early in the day and sneak in to other theaters to watch more movies. But the number of people who would want to watch both part A and B of one movie and not pay full price would be far higher then people who want to watch multiple different movies in a row.",
"date": "2024-01-11",
"id": "khcr3zh",
"parent_id": "1940ojb",
"score": 6,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": ">In practice some people already do this -- scan a ticket for a movie early in the day and sneak in to other theaters to watch more movies.\n\nSo this wouldn't create any more issues than already exists.\n\nAll you could switch halls between shows or you could leave and needing to activate the part B ticket if you want to use it tomorrow.",
"date": "2024-01-11",
"id": "khcseb1",
"parent_id": "khcr3zh",
"score": -3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": "We regularly see 3 hour long movies in theater nowadays like new The killer of the flower moon.\n\nMovie theaters should offer a split tickets where you buy a ticket and get to see Part A and Part B with short 5 minute intermission between those.\n\nBut if you can only manage to focus on 1,5 hour experience you only use ticket to part A and come tomorrow to watch part B. Or if you want to sit on movie theater for 3 hours straight without bathroom break you can do it (or have 5 minute bathroom break at intermission).\n\nMovie goers would benefit from it with extended freedom and movie theaters would benefit from it by having opportunity to sell more popcorn during intermission.",
"date": "2024-01-11",
"id": "1940ojb",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 89,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Movies lasting 3 or more hours should offer split tickets with intermission",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1940ojb/cmv_movies_lasting_3_or_more_hours_should_offer/"
},
{
"author": "anonymousredditorPC",
"body": "People can sit at their computer and phone for hours but a 3hr movie is too much",
"date": "2024-01-11",
"id": "khcriph",
"parent_id": "1940ojb",
"score": 10,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": "We have option to stop or move at our leisure.\n\nIn movies we have to sit for 3 hours all risk losing part of the movie. There is no pause button.",
"date": "2024-01-11",
"id": "khcs7b7",
"parent_id": "khcriph",
"score": 9,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": "We regularly see 3 hour long movies in theater nowadays like new The killer of the flower moon.\n\nMovie theaters should offer a split tickets where you buy a ticket and get to see Part A and Part B with short 5 minute intermission between those.\n\nBut if you can only manage to focus on 1,5 hour experience you only use ticket to part A and come tomorrow to watch part B. Or if you want to sit on movie theater for 3 hours straight without bathroom break you can do it (or have 5 minute bathroom break at intermission).\n\nMovie goers would benefit from it with extended freedom and movie theaters would benefit from it by having opportunity to sell more popcorn during intermission.",
"date": "2024-01-11",
"id": "1940ojb",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 89,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Movies lasting 3 or more hours should offer split tickets with intermission",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1940ojb/cmv_movies_lasting_3_or_more_hours_should_offer/"
},
{
"author": "Mr-Warmth",
"body": "Yes. 100%\n\nThey would sell more concessions as well.",
"date": "2024-01-11",
"id": "khcul6a",
"parent_id": "1940ojb",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Ansuz07",
"body": "Sorry, u/Mr-Warmth – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\r\n\r\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). \r\n\r\nIf you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20Mr-Warmth&message=Mr-Warmth%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\\[their%20comment\\]\\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1940ojb/-/khcul6a/\\)%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. \r\n\r\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
"date": "2024-01-11",
"id": "khdb9za",
"parent_id": "khcul6a",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": "We regularly see 3 hour long movies in theater nowadays like new The killer of the flower moon.\n\nMovie theaters should offer a split tickets where you buy a ticket and get to see Part A and Part B with short 5 minute intermission between those.\n\nBut if you can only manage to focus on 1,5 hour experience you only use ticket to part A and come tomorrow to watch part B. Or if you want to sit on movie theater for 3 hours straight without bathroom break you can do it (or have 5 minute bathroom break at intermission).\n\nMovie goers would benefit from it with extended freedom and movie theaters would benefit from it by having opportunity to sell more popcorn during intermission.",
"date": "2024-01-11",
"id": "1940ojb",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 89,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Movies lasting 3 or more hours should offer split tickets with intermission",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1940ojb/cmv_movies_lasting_3_or_more_hours_should_offer/"
},
{
"author": "wanderingtaoist",
"body": "You actually used to have intermissions in the movies, e.g. in The Godfather. They have been used to switch projectors/reels, which is not needed anymore. Also, movies have actually been edited with intermission in mind, which doesn't happen anymore.",
"date": "2024-01-11",
"id": "khcytap",
"parent_id": "1940ojb",
"score": 4,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": "We regularly see 3 hour long movies in theater nowadays like new The killer of the flower moon.\n\nMovie theaters should offer a split tickets where you buy a ticket and get to see Part A and Part B with short 5 minute intermission between those.\n\nBut if you can only manage to focus on 1,5 hour experience you only use ticket to part A and come tomorrow to watch part B. Or if you want to sit on movie theater for 3 hours straight without bathroom break you can do it (or have 5 minute bathroom break at intermission).\n\nMovie goers would benefit from it with extended freedom and movie theaters would benefit from it by having opportunity to sell more popcorn during intermission.",
"date": "2024-01-11",
"id": "1940ojb",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 89,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Movies lasting 3 or more hours should offer split tickets with intermission",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1940ojb/cmv_movies_lasting_3_or_more_hours_should_offer/"
},
{
"author": "hewasaraverboy",
"body": "Killers of the flower already had a built in intermission \n\nJust take a nap when you are bored and wake up an hour later and you haven’t missed anything",
"date": "2024-01-11",
"id": "khd29bn",
"parent_id": "1940ojb",
"score": -2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "viniciusbfonseca",
"body": "No it didn't, some theatres decided to add one, but Scorsese's editor, Thelma Schoonmaker, was furious about it. \n\nYou can read about it [here](https://deadline.com/2023/10/killers-of-the-flower-moon-intermissions-paramount-1235585730/)",
"date": "2024-01-11",
"id": "khd9mu2",
"parent_id": "khd29bn",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": "We regularly see 3 hour long movies in theater nowadays like new The killer of the flower moon.\n\nMovie theaters should offer a split tickets where you buy a ticket and get to see Part A and Part B with short 5 minute intermission between those.\n\nBut if you can only manage to focus on 1,5 hour experience you only use ticket to part A and come tomorrow to watch part B. Or if you want to sit on movie theater for 3 hours straight without bathroom break you can do it (or have 5 minute bathroom break at intermission).\n\nMovie goers would benefit from it with extended freedom and movie theaters would benefit from it by having opportunity to sell more popcorn during intermission.",
"date": "2024-01-11",
"id": "1940ojb",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 89,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Movies lasting 3 or more hours should offer split tickets with intermission",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1940ojb/cmv_movies_lasting_3_or_more_hours_should_offer/"
},
{
"author": "AdTrick7283",
"body": "Your 1st point states that movie theatres should offer split tickets where one buys a ticket to see 2 parts of a movie separately. However, separate tickets should not be needed. Many Indians movies are 3 hours long and they offer intermissions in the movie. I imagine that most Hollywood movies are like this as well.\n\nYour 2nd point states that if someone cannot handle a 3 to 3.5 hour movie, then they should view the movie at different intervals. However, most movies are 3 to 3.5 hours long, woth intervals, which means that it is practically impossible for a movie-goer to have a 1.5 hour attention-span. Again, only referring to Indian movies; do not know the scene at Hollywood. Even then, they can rest their short attention-span brains during songs.",
"date": "2024-01-11",
"id": "khd4c2t",
"parent_id": "1940ojb",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": "We regularly see 3 hour long movies in theater nowadays like new The killer of the flower moon.\n\nMovie theaters should offer a split tickets where you buy a ticket and get to see Part A and Part B with short 5 minute intermission between those.\n\nBut if you can only manage to focus on 1,5 hour experience you only use ticket to part A and come tomorrow to watch part B. Or if you want to sit on movie theater for 3 hours straight without bathroom break you can do it (or have 5 minute bathroom break at intermission).\n\nMovie goers would benefit from it with extended freedom and movie theaters would benefit from it by having opportunity to sell more popcorn during intermission.",
"date": "2024-01-11",
"id": "1940ojb",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 89,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Movies lasting 3 or more hours should offer split tickets with intermission",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1940ojb/cmv_movies_lasting_3_or_more_hours_should_offer/"
},
{
"author": "Dennis_enzo",
"body": "Maybe if you can't focus on watching a movie all the way through, going to the movies isn't something that you should do in the first place. There's nothing worse than getting ripped straight out of a movie by an intermission, and having to wait for 15 minutes for the people with poor bladder control or tiktok attention spans.\n\nIf you need a bathroom break, just go. Missing five minutes of the movie rarely means that you can't follow it anymore. Or maybe just don't down a liter of coke beforehand.",
"date": "2024-01-11",
"id": "khd7ha6",
"parent_id": "1940ojb",
"score": -1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "MicMix5",
"body": "Coming from a country where we used to have intermissions up until the late 2000s and having brought up with this experience I can tell you I kind of look down on people who enjoy the intermission free movie experience. You guys just don't know what you are missing... Getting a refill on your pop corn or soda, chatting and speculating about the second half of the movie, stretching,making a short phonecall and of course using the bathroom without having to lose any part of the movie. Those were the days! Also in your comment you severely downplay the sheer amount of people who would benefit from an intermission. Not everyone is a couch potato who can stay still for 3 plus hours. A lot of people (including older people) need to stretch or need to use the bathroom without having medical issues with their bladder.",
"date": "2024-01-11",
"id": "khft5c8",
"parent_id": "khd7ha6",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": "We regularly see 3 hour long movies in theater nowadays like new The killer of the flower moon.\n\nMovie theaters should offer a split tickets where you buy a ticket and get to see Part A and Part B with short 5 minute intermission between those.\n\nBut if you can only manage to focus on 1,5 hour experience you only use ticket to part A and come tomorrow to watch part B. Or if you want to sit on movie theater for 3 hours straight without bathroom break you can do it (or have 5 minute bathroom break at intermission).\n\nMovie goers would benefit from it with extended freedom and movie theaters would benefit from it by having opportunity to sell more popcorn during intermission.",
"date": "2024-01-11",
"id": "1940ojb",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 89,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Movies lasting 3 or more hours should offer split tickets with intermission",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1940ojb/cmv_movies_lasting_3_or_more_hours_should_offer/"
},
{
"author": "viniciusbfonseca",
"body": "The movie theatre doesn't have the right to edit a movie, there's a reason why Scorsese was so angry when a few theatres were adding an intermission to Killers of the Flower Moon: the way he shaped his story and had his (Academy Award winning) editor edit it had a reason for it to be so, and putting an intermission hinders that. \n\nI think that movies that are three hours or more should throughly consider adding an intermission when possible, as it was done 60 years ago (although the reason for that was that they couldn't put the entire movie in one reel and it needed to be changed), I think Oppenheimer- for instance - could've had an intermission, but Scorsese was right that Killers of the Flower Moon should be experienced non-stop. \n\nNowadays movies get to streaming and VOD in just a few months, so if you aren't able to stomach a long movie you can just watch it at home and pause whenever you want, but if I'm going to the theatre to watch something I want to have the experience that the creator intended for me to have, and not have some owner decide that point x is the time to have a break. \n\nBy all means we should be telling filmmakers to add intermissions to their long films, but that intermission should happen at the point they pick AND if they pick it. \n\nAs for having the two tickets and returning another day: some plays (like Harry Potter, The Inheritance, and the recent revival of Angels in America) that are in two parts (each with two or three acts and intermissions between them, mind you) did something similar by having you decide when you will be returning for part two at the time you purchase your ticket, so it could be at the showing of that same day (if available), or the next day or even the next week. \n\nIt does make that there might not be any more room on your preferred date of return and you'll have to settle for another, but it's the only way that the theatre itself can know how many people there'll be at each performance and for you to have a reserved seat. I personally don't think that that should be done for movies - unless the filmmaker wants to make something that is six hours long, like what Ridley Scott wanted \"Napoleon\" to be - three and a half hours (with a possible 15min intermission) isn't that long to commit and it would cause a pain for the theatres itself (who would probably have to charge double for the tickets) and likely hinder your experience.",
"date": "2024-01-11",
"id": "khd8pve",
"parent_id": "1940ojb",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "tanglekelp",
"body": "I’m not really sure your first part is true. At least when I was younger intermissions were added to every movie by the theatre, I doubt these were added by the filmmakers or that the theatre was doing anything illegal",
"date": "2024-01-11",
"id": "khf4rzs",
"parent_id": "khd8pve",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": "We regularly see 3 hour long movies in theater nowadays like new The killer of the flower moon.\n\nMovie theaters should offer a split tickets where you buy a ticket and get to see Part A and Part B with short 5 minute intermission between those.\n\nBut if you can only manage to focus on 1,5 hour experience you only use ticket to part A and come tomorrow to watch part B. Or if you want to sit on movie theater for 3 hours straight without bathroom break you can do it (or have 5 minute bathroom break at intermission).\n\nMovie goers would benefit from it with extended freedom and movie theaters would benefit from it by having opportunity to sell more popcorn during intermission.",
"date": "2024-01-11",
"id": "1940ojb",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 89,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Movies lasting 3 or more hours should offer split tickets with intermission",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1940ojb/cmv_movies_lasting_3_or_more_hours_should_offer/"
},
{
"author": "Squirtle_from_PT",
"body": "I agree with the part about the break. No one should expect you to stay in you seat for 3 straight hours + commercials.\n\n> But if you can only manage to focus on 1,5 hour experience you only use ticket to part A and come tomorrow to watch part B.\n\nBut this would be logistically impossible. Cinemas wouldn't sell one and a half seats for the price of one, when they wouldn't know whether you'd come on the 2nd day or not.",
"date": "2024-01-11",
"id": "khdlhn5",
"parent_id": "1940ojb",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": "We regularly see 3 hour long movies in theater nowadays like new The killer of the flower moon.\n\nMovie theaters should offer a split tickets where you buy a ticket and get to see Part A and Part B with short 5 minute intermission between those.\n\nBut if you can only manage to focus on 1,5 hour experience you only use ticket to part A and come tomorrow to watch part B. Or if you want to sit on movie theater for 3 hours straight without bathroom break you can do it (or have 5 minute bathroom break at intermission).\n\nMovie goers would benefit from it with extended freedom and movie theaters would benefit from it by having opportunity to sell more popcorn during intermission.",
"date": "2024-01-11",
"id": "1940ojb",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 89,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Movies lasting 3 or more hours should offer split tickets with intermission",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1940ojb/cmv_movies_lasting_3_or_more_hours_should_offer/"
},
{
"author": "AQuestionAnswerer",
"body": "I was just talking about this with my wife like a month ago. I might even lower the length to 2 hours. I feel like I almost always have to get up at least once in a movie lol.",
"date": "2024-01-11",
"id": "khdrl9s",
"parent_id": "1940ojb",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": "We regularly see 3 hour long movies in theater nowadays like new The killer of the flower moon.\n\nMovie theaters should offer a split tickets where you buy a ticket and get to see Part A and Part B with short 5 minute intermission between those.\n\nBut if you can only manage to focus on 1,5 hour experience you only use ticket to part A and come tomorrow to watch part B. Or if you want to sit on movie theater for 3 hours straight without bathroom break you can do it (or have 5 minute bathroom break at intermission).\n\nMovie goers would benefit from it with extended freedom and movie theaters would benefit from it by having opportunity to sell more popcorn during intermission.",
"date": "2024-01-11",
"id": "1940ojb",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 89,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Movies lasting 3 or more hours should offer split tickets with intermission",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1940ojb/cmv_movies_lasting_3_or_more_hours_should_offer/"
},
{
"author": "housington-the-3rd",
"body": "3 hours is already long enough to be at the theatre. As much as an intermission sounds nice it just extends the time you're there and increases the chances of spending more money. Saying that it seems like a good idea for the theatre.",
"date": "2024-01-11",
"id": "khei5dm",
"parent_id": "1940ojb",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": "We regularly see 3 hour long movies in theater nowadays like new The killer of the flower moon.\n\nMovie theaters should offer a split tickets where you buy a ticket and get to see Part A and Part B with short 5 minute intermission between those.\n\nBut if you can only manage to focus on 1,5 hour experience you only use ticket to part A and come tomorrow to watch part B. Or if you want to sit on movie theater for 3 hours straight without bathroom break you can do it (or have 5 minute bathroom break at intermission).\n\nMovie goers would benefit from it with extended freedom and movie theaters would benefit from it by having opportunity to sell more popcorn during intermission.",
"date": "2024-01-11",
"id": "1940ojb",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 89,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Movies lasting 3 or more hours should offer split tickets with intermission",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1940ojb/cmv_movies_lasting_3_or_more_hours_should_offer/"
},
{
"author": "tanglekelp",
"body": "In my country intermissions used to be the norm but the (now) biggest movie theatre chain removed them. The reason? It’s way too hard to plan for when it comes to selling popcorn etc. If you have 12 theatre rooms without intermissions you can plan for it. You have popcorn ready when each movies starts, and in between the rush moments you have time to clean, go on break, refill things, change popcorn that wasn’t sold etc. Then when movies end people also sometimes want to buy something but you can plan for that too. \n\nAdd in intermissions and it becomes a logistical mess. However you plan you will end up with problems.",
"date": "2024-01-11",
"id": "khf62pu",
"parent_id": "1940ojb",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": "We regularly see 3 hour long movies in theater nowadays like new The killer of the flower moon.\n\nMovie theaters should offer a split tickets where you buy a ticket and get to see Part A and Part B with short 5 minute intermission between those.\n\nBut if you can only manage to focus on 1,5 hour experience you only use ticket to part A and come tomorrow to watch part B. Or if you want to sit on movie theater for 3 hours straight without bathroom break you can do it (or have 5 minute bathroom break at intermission).\n\nMovie goers would benefit from it with extended freedom and movie theaters would benefit from it by having opportunity to sell more popcorn during intermission.",
"date": "2024-01-11",
"id": "1940ojb",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 89,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Movies lasting 3 or more hours should offer split tickets with intermission",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1940ojb/cmv_movies_lasting_3_or_more_hours_should_offer/"
},
{
"author": "NrFive",
"body": "We have various cinema chains here in NL. There are a couple of them which offer intermissions to get snacks and a toilet break. Usually 15-30 mins. Sometimes longer depending on the feature.",
"date": "2024-01-11",
"id": "khg2bcd",
"parent_id": "1940ojb",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": "We regularly see 3 hour long movies in theater nowadays like new The killer of the flower moon.\n\nMovie theaters should offer a split tickets where you buy a ticket and get to see Part A and Part B with short 5 minute intermission between those.\n\nBut if you can only manage to focus on 1,5 hour experience you only use ticket to part A and come tomorrow to watch part B. Or if you want to sit on movie theater for 3 hours straight without bathroom break you can do it (or have 5 minute bathroom break at intermission).\n\nMovie goers would benefit from it with extended freedom and movie theaters would benefit from it by having opportunity to sell more popcorn during intermission.",
"date": "2024-01-11",
"id": "1940ojb",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 89,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Movies lasting 3 or more hours should offer split tickets with intermission",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1940ojb/cmv_movies_lasting_3_or_more_hours_should_offer/"
},
{
"author": "6oober",
"body": "I wouldn't dismiss this idea. Live Theater does it for different reasons. I think an innovative movie theater might be into it. I don't think it should be an all or nothing type thing. \n\nSome movie screenings would benefit from being split and some would not. You've given great reasons why and others have given reasons why not. I think it'd be a great gimmick for a small movie theater to try out and if it gets some traction, the larger mainstream movie theaters will try it out too.",
"date": "2024-01-11",
"id": "khgepuq",
"parent_id": "1940ojb",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": "We regularly see 3 hour long movies in theater nowadays like new The killer of the flower moon.\n\nMovie theaters should offer a split tickets where you buy a ticket and get to see Part A and Part B with short 5 minute intermission between those.\n\nBut if you can only manage to focus on 1,5 hour experience you only use ticket to part A and come tomorrow to watch part B. Or if you want to sit on movie theater for 3 hours straight without bathroom break you can do it (or have 5 minute bathroom break at intermission).\n\nMovie goers would benefit from it with extended freedom and movie theaters would benefit from it by having opportunity to sell more popcorn during intermission.",
"date": "2024-01-11",
"id": "1940ojb",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 89,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Movies lasting 3 or more hours should offer split tickets with intermission",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1940ojb/cmv_movies_lasting_3_or_more_hours_should_offer/"
},
{
"author": "Constellation-88",
"body": "If you can’t focus on a movie for more than 1.5 hours, wait til it comes out on streaming and watch it at home. ",
"date": "2024-01-12",
"id": "khh9iho",
"parent_id": "1940ojb",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": "We regularly see 3 hour long movies in theater nowadays like new The killer of the flower moon.\n\nMovie theaters should offer a split tickets where you buy a ticket and get to see Part A and Part B with short 5 minute intermission between those.\n\nBut if you can only manage to focus on 1,5 hour experience you only use ticket to part A and come tomorrow to watch part B. Or if you want to sit on movie theater for 3 hours straight without bathroom break you can do it (or have 5 minute bathroom break at intermission).\n\nMovie goers would benefit from it with extended freedom and movie theaters would benefit from it by having opportunity to sell more popcorn during intermission.",
"date": "2024-01-11",
"id": "1940ojb",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 89,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Movies lasting 3 or more hours should offer split tickets with intermission",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1940ojb/cmv_movies_lasting_3_or_more_hours_should_offer/"
},
{
"author": "MilkyCowTits420",
"body": "It's not hard to sit down and pay attention for 3 hours, if you can't do today just wait and watch it at home. ",
"date": "2024-01-12",
"id": "khipigx",
"parent_id": "1940ojb",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": "We regularly see 3 hour long movies in theater nowadays like new The killer of the flower moon.\n\nMovie theaters should offer a split tickets where you buy a ticket and get to see Part A and Part B with short 5 minute intermission between those.\n\nBut if you can only manage to focus on 1,5 hour experience you only use ticket to part A and come tomorrow to watch part B. Or if you want to sit on movie theater for 3 hours straight without bathroom break you can do it (or have 5 minute bathroom break at intermission).\n\nMovie goers would benefit from it with extended freedom and movie theaters would benefit from it by having opportunity to sell more popcorn during intermission.",
"date": "2024-01-11",
"id": "1940ojb",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 89,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Movies lasting 3 or more hours should offer split tickets with intermission",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1940ojb/cmv_movies_lasting_3_or_more_hours_should_offer/"
},
{
"author": "Appropriate-Ad8337",
"body": "Idk about the split days idea, but I do think 3 hour movies should have an intermission. Every single 2+ hour play I've been to has had one... so it's kind of weird that movies don't (and sell drinks. What the heck. My stupid tiny bladder. I don't actually drink anything at the movies anymore because I've suffered enough).",
"date": "2024-01-15",
"id": "khxpy4f",
"parent_id": "1940ojb",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
]
]
| moderate |
[
{
"author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
"body": "Yesterday during my session with my therapist, she said it's okay to ask a woman's friend's about them if I'm interested in them. For example, if I ask if the person is single, they may say \"Yes, she is single, she might be interested\" or \"No, she has a boyfriend, sorry\", for example.\n\nHowever, I've been hesitant to do that and I like to treat crushes as a one-man, \"no one but yourself, trust no one\" job. This is for a few main reasons:\n\n1. I feel that it would be putting my energy into the wrong thing. People say that you should talk to the woman DIRECTLY when pursuing a relationship. This means gauging her potential interest through social cues, stating your intentions/asking her on a date, etc. I think telling other people you like a woman carries the risk of them passing the knowledge to your love interest *before* you can state your feelings directly, which can show a lack of confidence. It would block direct communication of your feelings and thereby reduce the chances of a *clearly communicated* romantic relationship. Why spend time and energy trying to learn about a woman and communicate your interests *through* another person when you could use the same time and energy to ask her out, get to know her better, and gauge her interest via social cues? Why do all sorts of crowdsourcing and gathering enough information to write a research paper over... a simple crush? Something that plenty of people have and can handle with ease?\n\n2. The woman's mutual friends aren't obligated to give me info about her. In fact, they may even give me the wrong info if they aren't comfortable giving me true information, which could screw me over in the long run. All of that could be avoided by cutting all the extra people out of the equation and talking to the woman directly.\n\n3. I feel that it entirely misses the point of dating. If you want to establish a relationship, people say, state your intentions and ask her out. The question is not: \"Is she single?\" \"Does she have a boyfriend?\" The question is: \"How can I communicate my intentions and seeing if this person likes me back?\" Do I want to find out if a woman is *single*, or if I have relationship potential with said woman?\n\nMy hesitation comes from poor experiences in grade school. Two that come to mind are:\n\n1. Senior year of HS. I liked a girl from band. Her friend posted on his Snapchat story responding to an anonymous comment. The comment asked \"Is [crush] single?\" to which he responded \"Yeah, go hit her up\". I commented on the post asking how I can do that. He didn't directly answer the question, and instead asked \"Did you ask that?\" The conversation didn't continue after that. A few weeks later, I heard the girl was dating the male friend in question. On his story, he responded to an anonymous comment asking \"Are you and [crush] dating?\" by confirming the statement.\n\n2. Also senior year of HS. I tried pursuing a relationship with a girl from my class, and I admit I was not in the right in this situation because I didn't take signals of her not being interested, mistook friendliness for romantic attraction, and became distressed over not getting what I wanted. I asked several of my classmates if she was single, to which I got several different answers. Most of them just didn't know, some of them said she was single but not looking for a romantic partner, some of them said she had a boyfriend, and even one of them said she was flirting with a guy but I could somehow \"overtake\" him if I tried hard enough. One day I asked the girl \"are you dating someone\", to which she said no but it was an uncomfortable no. I admit this was a big mistake on my part. I strongly believe some of them told her I liked her. One day I messaged her asking about going to the beach during spring break with some of our peers, to which she said she would not be able to since she would be traveling out of the country. One day I was with some of her friends during the lunch break. They told me they knew I had a crush on her, so they tried videocalling her on my phone (it didn't go through), then asked what I would do if she had COVID (this was in 2020 right before quarantine), then dared me to sing a song about her. One of them also told me she would actually not be traveling out of the country and therefore could bring her on the beach trip. A few days later, the girl blocked me on my socials and the beach trip didn't happen due to quarantine. I was shocked because I felt that \"I did everything I was supposed to do, and I still got blocked.\"\n\nMy trust in other people went down after that and since then I became scared of asking for advice about a specific person from my peers out of fear of being given the wrong information and fucked over as a result. \n\nHowever, I have begun making some effort to rebuild my trust with my peers in that sense. It was only recently in early 2023 that I opened up to a select few of my closest friends about a platonic obsession (squish) with a female friend, and after opening up to them I felt a million times better. Now I would like to further open myself up and feel more comfortable about telling my peers about romance.\n\nCMV",
"date": "2024-01-19",
"id": "19ato86",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: It's not okay to ask for advice about a potential love interest from another friend.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/19ato86/cmv_its_not_okay_to_ask_for_advice_about_a/"
},
{
"author": "IconiclyIncognito",
"body": "Both of your experiences are not what the therapist recommended. So they're almost irrelevant. I would say both of your experiences were going about it in a not great way. Which is to be expected since you were inexperienced. Most people mess up at that age.\n\nThe advice is more concentrated on asking people who know her well and have a vested interest in her being happy, if it is something to pursue.\n\nIt does have benefits. You listed some as cons, but it can be either way. Yes her friends can lie to you. This generally shouldn't make it harder on you. It's intended to be graceful towards both of you. If you are asking someone that actually knows her and cares about her happiness then they will easily let you down before you get yourself into an uncomfortable position. \n\nYes you can also use body and social ques to determine if you should ask someone out. But not everyone is good at that. Are you? Are you experienced with it? \n\nIt sounds like you asked your therapist for advice because you recognized you were going about things incorrectly. Don't crowdsource, or get enough information for a research paper. Follow social norms and boundaries. Asking a singular person if their friend is single and might be interested is normal, socially acceptable, and a great option.",
"date": "2024-01-19",
"id": "kingcp9",
"parent_id": "19ato86",
"score": 4,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
"body": "You have great points. I agree my previous experiences were more about taking the advice incorrectly and less about the validity of the actual advice itself.\n\n>The advice is more concentrated on asking people who know her well and have a vested interest in her being happy, if it is something to pursue.\n\nI also think it's more concentrated on close/trusted friends, which is not who I sought in high school.\n\n>If you are asking someone that actually knows her and cares about her happiness then they will easily let you down before you get yourself into an uncomfortable position. \n\nI agree that lying can have some benefits. In addition, I like to believe that it just doesn't happen as often as in high school.\n\n>Don't crowdsource, or get enough information for a research paper. Follow social norms and boundaries. Asking a singular person if their friend is single and might be interested is normal, socially acceptable, and a great option.\n\nGood idea. What I'll do moving forward is, maybe seek advice from a few people, but mostly speaking with my interest directly, asking them on a date, and following social norms and boundaries. I no longer think that's the same as crowdsourcing in lieu of actually asking the person out. !delta",
"date": "2024-01-19",
"id": "kinkh5s",
"parent_id": "kingcp9",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "DeltaBot",
"body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/IconiclyIncognito ([1∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/IconiclyIncognito)).\n\n^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
"date": "2024-01-19",
"id": "kinkl7h",
"parent_id": "kinkh5s",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
]
| [
[
{
"author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
"body": "Yesterday during my session with my therapist, she said it's okay to ask a woman's friend's about them if I'm interested in them. For example, if I ask if the person is single, they may say \"Yes, she is single, she might be interested\" or \"No, she has a boyfriend, sorry\", for example.\n\nHowever, I've been hesitant to do that and I like to treat crushes as a one-man, \"no one but yourself, trust no one\" job. This is for a few main reasons:\n\n1. I feel that it would be putting my energy into the wrong thing. People say that you should talk to the woman DIRECTLY when pursuing a relationship. This means gauging her potential interest through social cues, stating your intentions/asking her on a date, etc. I think telling other people you like a woman carries the risk of them passing the knowledge to your love interest *before* you can state your feelings directly, which can show a lack of confidence. It would block direct communication of your feelings and thereby reduce the chances of a *clearly communicated* romantic relationship. Why spend time and energy trying to learn about a woman and communicate your interests *through* another person when you could use the same time and energy to ask her out, get to know her better, and gauge her interest via social cues? Why do all sorts of crowdsourcing and gathering enough information to write a research paper over... a simple crush? Something that plenty of people have and can handle with ease?\n\n2. The woman's mutual friends aren't obligated to give me info about her. In fact, they may even give me the wrong info if they aren't comfortable giving me true information, which could screw me over in the long run. All of that could be avoided by cutting all the extra people out of the equation and talking to the woman directly.\n\n3. I feel that it entirely misses the point of dating. If you want to establish a relationship, people say, state your intentions and ask her out. The question is not: \"Is she single?\" \"Does she have a boyfriend?\" The question is: \"How can I communicate my intentions and seeing if this person likes me back?\" Do I want to find out if a woman is *single*, or if I have relationship potential with said woman?\n\nMy hesitation comes from poor experiences in grade school. Two that come to mind are:\n\n1. Senior year of HS. I liked a girl from band. Her friend posted on his Snapchat story responding to an anonymous comment. The comment asked \"Is [crush] single?\" to which he responded \"Yeah, go hit her up\". I commented on the post asking how I can do that. He didn't directly answer the question, and instead asked \"Did you ask that?\" The conversation didn't continue after that. A few weeks later, I heard the girl was dating the male friend in question. On his story, he responded to an anonymous comment asking \"Are you and [crush] dating?\" by confirming the statement.\n\n2. Also senior year of HS. I tried pursuing a relationship with a girl from my class, and I admit I was not in the right in this situation because I didn't take signals of her not being interested, mistook friendliness for romantic attraction, and became distressed over not getting what I wanted. I asked several of my classmates if she was single, to which I got several different answers. Most of them just didn't know, some of them said she was single but not looking for a romantic partner, some of them said she had a boyfriend, and even one of them said she was flirting with a guy but I could somehow \"overtake\" him if I tried hard enough. One day I asked the girl \"are you dating someone\", to which she said no but it was an uncomfortable no. I admit this was a big mistake on my part. I strongly believe some of them told her I liked her. One day I messaged her asking about going to the beach during spring break with some of our peers, to which she said she would not be able to since she would be traveling out of the country. One day I was with some of her friends during the lunch break. They told me they knew I had a crush on her, so they tried videocalling her on my phone (it didn't go through), then asked what I would do if she had COVID (this was in 2020 right before quarantine), then dared me to sing a song about her. One of them also told me she would actually not be traveling out of the country and therefore could bring her on the beach trip. A few days later, the girl blocked me on my socials and the beach trip didn't happen due to quarantine. I was shocked because I felt that \"I did everything I was supposed to do, and I still got blocked.\"\n\nMy trust in other people went down after that and since then I became scared of asking for advice about a specific person from my peers out of fear of being given the wrong information and fucked over as a result. \n\nHowever, I have begun making some effort to rebuild my trust with my peers in that sense. It was only recently in early 2023 that I opened up to a select few of my closest friends about a platonic obsession (squish) with a female friend, and after opening up to them I felt a million times better. Now I would like to further open myself up and feel more comfortable about telling my peers about romance.\n\nCMV",
"date": "2024-01-19",
"id": "19ato86",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: It's not okay to ask for advice about a potential love interest from another friend.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/19ato86/cmv_its_not_okay_to_ask_for_advice_about_a/"
},
{
"author": "GotAJeepNeedAJeep",
"body": "Nearly a thousand words and who knows how much in billable hours to dance around the simplest solution...\n\n\"Hey, \\[person that I'm interested in\\] I think you're great and would love to know if you're interested too. Can I take you on a date?\" followed by \"awesome, can't wait!\" or \"no worries, I totally understand.\"\n\nWhat on earth makes the situation more complicated than this in your mind?",
"date": "2024-01-19",
"id": "kincnza",
"parent_id": "19ato86",
"score": 6,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
"body": "This post isn't arguing against stating your intentions/asking a girl on a date. It's about my personal pushback against seeking advice from their friend on the specific situation, and generally *because* it's far easier and simpler to ask them on a date.",
"date": "2024-01-19",
"id": "kindtcm",
"parent_id": "kincnza",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
"body": "Yesterday during my session with my therapist, she said it's okay to ask a woman's friend's about them if I'm interested in them. For example, if I ask if the person is single, they may say \"Yes, she is single, she might be interested\" or \"No, she has a boyfriend, sorry\", for example.\n\nHowever, I've been hesitant to do that and I like to treat crushes as a one-man, \"no one but yourself, trust no one\" job. This is for a few main reasons:\n\n1. I feel that it would be putting my energy into the wrong thing. People say that you should talk to the woman DIRECTLY when pursuing a relationship. This means gauging her potential interest through social cues, stating your intentions/asking her on a date, etc. I think telling other people you like a woman carries the risk of them passing the knowledge to your love interest *before* you can state your feelings directly, which can show a lack of confidence. It would block direct communication of your feelings and thereby reduce the chances of a *clearly communicated* romantic relationship. Why spend time and energy trying to learn about a woman and communicate your interests *through* another person when you could use the same time and energy to ask her out, get to know her better, and gauge her interest via social cues? Why do all sorts of crowdsourcing and gathering enough information to write a research paper over... a simple crush? Something that plenty of people have and can handle with ease?\n\n2. The woman's mutual friends aren't obligated to give me info about her. In fact, they may even give me the wrong info if they aren't comfortable giving me true information, which could screw me over in the long run. All of that could be avoided by cutting all the extra people out of the equation and talking to the woman directly.\n\n3. I feel that it entirely misses the point of dating. If you want to establish a relationship, people say, state your intentions and ask her out. The question is not: \"Is she single?\" \"Does she have a boyfriend?\" The question is: \"How can I communicate my intentions and seeing if this person likes me back?\" Do I want to find out if a woman is *single*, or if I have relationship potential with said woman?\n\nMy hesitation comes from poor experiences in grade school. Two that come to mind are:\n\n1. Senior year of HS. I liked a girl from band. Her friend posted on his Snapchat story responding to an anonymous comment. The comment asked \"Is [crush] single?\" to which he responded \"Yeah, go hit her up\". I commented on the post asking how I can do that. He didn't directly answer the question, and instead asked \"Did you ask that?\" The conversation didn't continue after that. A few weeks later, I heard the girl was dating the male friend in question. On his story, he responded to an anonymous comment asking \"Are you and [crush] dating?\" by confirming the statement.\n\n2. Also senior year of HS. I tried pursuing a relationship with a girl from my class, and I admit I was not in the right in this situation because I didn't take signals of her not being interested, mistook friendliness for romantic attraction, and became distressed over not getting what I wanted. I asked several of my classmates if she was single, to which I got several different answers. Most of them just didn't know, some of them said she was single but not looking for a romantic partner, some of them said she had a boyfriend, and even one of them said she was flirting with a guy but I could somehow \"overtake\" him if I tried hard enough. One day I asked the girl \"are you dating someone\", to which she said no but it was an uncomfortable no. I admit this was a big mistake on my part. I strongly believe some of them told her I liked her. One day I messaged her asking about going to the beach during spring break with some of our peers, to which she said she would not be able to since she would be traveling out of the country. One day I was with some of her friends during the lunch break. They told me they knew I had a crush on her, so they tried videocalling her on my phone (it didn't go through), then asked what I would do if she had COVID (this was in 2020 right before quarantine), then dared me to sing a song about her. One of them also told me she would actually not be traveling out of the country and therefore could bring her on the beach trip. A few days later, the girl blocked me on my socials and the beach trip didn't happen due to quarantine. I was shocked because I felt that \"I did everything I was supposed to do, and I still got blocked.\"\n\nMy trust in other people went down after that and since then I became scared of asking for advice about a specific person from my peers out of fear of being given the wrong information and fucked over as a result. \n\nHowever, I have begun making some effort to rebuild my trust with my peers in that sense. It was only recently in early 2023 that I opened up to a select few of my closest friends about a platonic obsession (squish) with a female friend, and after opening up to them I felt a million times better. Now I would like to further open myself up and feel more comfortable about telling my peers about romance.\n\nCMV",
"date": "2024-01-19",
"id": "19ato86",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: It's not okay to ask for advice about a potential love interest from another friend.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/19ato86/cmv_its_not_okay_to_ask_for_advice_about_a/"
},
{
"author": "eggs-benedryl",
"body": "God I'm glad facebook only just started being used when I graduated.. yikes.\n\nMost adults don't give enough of a shit to sabotage you or even care one way or another. Are you in college where this gossipy cliquey behavior is still prevalent? \n\nIt also occurs to me that you should probably be talking about this with your therapist and not reddit, they exist to help you with these feelings.",
"date": "2024-01-19",
"id": "kiney69",
"parent_id": "19ato86",
"score": 7,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
"body": "Yesterday during my session with my therapist, she said it's okay to ask a woman's friend's about them if I'm interested in them. For example, if I ask if the person is single, they may say \"Yes, she is single, she might be interested\" or \"No, she has a boyfriend, sorry\", for example.\n\nHowever, I've been hesitant to do that and I like to treat crushes as a one-man, \"no one but yourself, trust no one\" job. This is for a few main reasons:\n\n1. I feel that it would be putting my energy into the wrong thing. People say that you should talk to the woman DIRECTLY when pursuing a relationship. This means gauging her potential interest through social cues, stating your intentions/asking her on a date, etc. I think telling other people you like a woman carries the risk of them passing the knowledge to your love interest *before* you can state your feelings directly, which can show a lack of confidence. It would block direct communication of your feelings and thereby reduce the chances of a *clearly communicated* romantic relationship. Why spend time and energy trying to learn about a woman and communicate your interests *through* another person when you could use the same time and energy to ask her out, get to know her better, and gauge her interest via social cues? Why do all sorts of crowdsourcing and gathering enough information to write a research paper over... a simple crush? Something that plenty of people have and can handle with ease?\n\n2. The woman's mutual friends aren't obligated to give me info about her. In fact, they may even give me the wrong info if they aren't comfortable giving me true information, which could screw me over in the long run. All of that could be avoided by cutting all the extra people out of the equation and talking to the woman directly.\n\n3. I feel that it entirely misses the point of dating. If you want to establish a relationship, people say, state your intentions and ask her out. The question is not: \"Is she single?\" \"Does she have a boyfriend?\" The question is: \"How can I communicate my intentions and seeing if this person likes me back?\" Do I want to find out if a woman is *single*, or if I have relationship potential with said woman?\n\nMy hesitation comes from poor experiences in grade school. Two that come to mind are:\n\n1. Senior year of HS. I liked a girl from band. Her friend posted on his Snapchat story responding to an anonymous comment. The comment asked \"Is [crush] single?\" to which he responded \"Yeah, go hit her up\". I commented on the post asking how I can do that. He didn't directly answer the question, and instead asked \"Did you ask that?\" The conversation didn't continue after that. A few weeks later, I heard the girl was dating the male friend in question. On his story, he responded to an anonymous comment asking \"Are you and [crush] dating?\" by confirming the statement.\n\n2. Also senior year of HS. I tried pursuing a relationship with a girl from my class, and I admit I was not in the right in this situation because I didn't take signals of her not being interested, mistook friendliness for romantic attraction, and became distressed over not getting what I wanted. I asked several of my classmates if she was single, to which I got several different answers. Most of them just didn't know, some of them said she was single but not looking for a romantic partner, some of them said she had a boyfriend, and even one of them said she was flirting with a guy but I could somehow \"overtake\" him if I tried hard enough. One day I asked the girl \"are you dating someone\", to which she said no but it was an uncomfortable no. I admit this was a big mistake on my part. I strongly believe some of them told her I liked her. One day I messaged her asking about going to the beach during spring break with some of our peers, to which she said she would not be able to since she would be traveling out of the country. One day I was with some of her friends during the lunch break. They told me they knew I had a crush on her, so they tried videocalling her on my phone (it didn't go through), then asked what I would do if she had COVID (this was in 2020 right before quarantine), then dared me to sing a song about her. One of them also told me she would actually not be traveling out of the country and therefore could bring her on the beach trip. A few days later, the girl blocked me on my socials and the beach trip didn't happen due to quarantine. I was shocked because I felt that \"I did everything I was supposed to do, and I still got blocked.\"\n\nMy trust in other people went down after that and since then I became scared of asking for advice about a specific person from my peers out of fear of being given the wrong information and fucked over as a result. \n\nHowever, I have begun making some effort to rebuild my trust with my peers in that sense. It was only recently in early 2023 that I opened up to a select few of my closest friends about a platonic obsession (squish) with a female friend, and after opening up to them I felt a million times better. Now I would like to further open myself up and feel more comfortable about telling my peers about romance.\n\nCMV",
"date": "2024-01-19",
"id": "19ato86",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: It's not okay to ask for advice about a potential love interest from another friend.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/19ato86/cmv_its_not_okay_to_ask_for_advice_about_a/"
},
{
"author": "RedCravat",
"body": "I would suggest taking a step back from your perspective, and try thinking about each person in this scenario in a way that genuinely cares about their well-being.\n\nI'm not a doctor or anything, its just a practice I do to help me pull myself out of these type of mental labyrinths of doubt",
"date": "2024-01-19",
"id": "kinfh5f",
"parent_id": "19ato86",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
"body": "Yesterday during my session with my therapist, she said it's okay to ask a woman's friend's about them if I'm interested in them. For example, if I ask if the person is single, they may say \"Yes, she is single, she might be interested\" or \"No, she has a boyfriend, sorry\", for example.\n\nHowever, I've been hesitant to do that and I like to treat crushes as a one-man, \"no one but yourself, trust no one\" job. This is for a few main reasons:\n\n1. I feel that it would be putting my energy into the wrong thing. People say that you should talk to the woman DIRECTLY when pursuing a relationship. This means gauging her potential interest through social cues, stating your intentions/asking her on a date, etc. I think telling other people you like a woman carries the risk of them passing the knowledge to your love interest *before* you can state your feelings directly, which can show a lack of confidence. It would block direct communication of your feelings and thereby reduce the chances of a *clearly communicated* romantic relationship. Why spend time and energy trying to learn about a woman and communicate your interests *through* another person when you could use the same time and energy to ask her out, get to know her better, and gauge her interest via social cues? Why do all sorts of crowdsourcing and gathering enough information to write a research paper over... a simple crush? Something that plenty of people have and can handle with ease?\n\n2. The woman's mutual friends aren't obligated to give me info about her. In fact, they may even give me the wrong info if they aren't comfortable giving me true information, which could screw me over in the long run. All of that could be avoided by cutting all the extra people out of the equation and talking to the woman directly.\n\n3. I feel that it entirely misses the point of dating. If you want to establish a relationship, people say, state your intentions and ask her out. The question is not: \"Is she single?\" \"Does she have a boyfriend?\" The question is: \"How can I communicate my intentions and seeing if this person likes me back?\" Do I want to find out if a woman is *single*, or if I have relationship potential with said woman?\n\nMy hesitation comes from poor experiences in grade school. Two that come to mind are:\n\n1. Senior year of HS. I liked a girl from band. Her friend posted on his Snapchat story responding to an anonymous comment. The comment asked \"Is [crush] single?\" to which he responded \"Yeah, go hit her up\". I commented on the post asking how I can do that. He didn't directly answer the question, and instead asked \"Did you ask that?\" The conversation didn't continue after that. A few weeks later, I heard the girl was dating the male friend in question. On his story, he responded to an anonymous comment asking \"Are you and [crush] dating?\" by confirming the statement.\n\n2. Also senior year of HS. I tried pursuing a relationship with a girl from my class, and I admit I was not in the right in this situation because I didn't take signals of her not being interested, mistook friendliness for romantic attraction, and became distressed over not getting what I wanted. I asked several of my classmates if she was single, to which I got several different answers. Most of them just didn't know, some of them said she was single but not looking for a romantic partner, some of them said she had a boyfriend, and even one of them said she was flirting with a guy but I could somehow \"overtake\" him if I tried hard enough. One day I asked the girl \"are you dating someone\", to which she said no but it was an uncomfortable no. I admit this was a big mistake on my part. I strongly believe some of them told her I liked her. One day I messaged her asking about going to the beach during spring break with some of our peers, to which she said she would not be able to since she would be traveling out of the country. One day I was with some of her friends during the lunch break. They told me they knew I had a crush on her, so they tried videocalling her on my phone (it didn't go through), then asked what I would do if she had COVID (this was in 2020 right before quarantine), then dared me to sing a song about her. One of them also told me she would actually not be traveling out of the country and therefore could bring her on the beach trip. A few days later, the girl blocked me on my socials and the beach trip didn't happen due to quarantine. I was shocked because I felt that \"I did everything I was supposed to do, and I still got blocked.\"\n\nMy trust in other people went down after that and since then I became scared of asking for advice about a specific person from my peers out of fear of being given the wrong information and fucked over as a result. \n\nHowever, I have begun making some effort to rebuild my trust with my peers in that sense. It was only recently in early 2023 that I opened up to a select few of my closest friends about a platonic obsession (squish) with a female friend, and after opening up to them I felt a million times better. Now I would like to further open myself up and feel more comfortable about telling my peers about romance.\n\nCMV",
"date": "2024-01-19",
"id": "19ato86",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: It's not okay to ask for advice about a potential love interest from another friend.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/19ato86/cmv_its_not_okay_to_ask_for_advice_about_a/"
},
{
"author": "Relative-One-4060",
"body": "The issue is in both of your situations.\n\nIn situation 1, you took Snapchat Q&A as a truthful and logical statement. Do you really think Snapchat is a reliable source for that information?\n\nIn situation 2, you went around asking multiple people, and then got dragged into weird high school drama.\n\nThose situations are not indicative of adult dating.\n\nIt is totally fine, in certain situations, to ask the friend of someone you are interested in if they are single or would even be open to considering a relationship with you or anyone. Nearly all adults would respond with decent information, or just say that they don't know, or that you should ask the person you're interested in directly.\n\nIts telling that the only examples you could use for this viewpoint are ones from High school, a place where people are not fully matured yet.\n\nI feel like its definitely okay to ask because its not breaking boundaries, and can help you avoid awkward situations or friend-breaking questions.\n\nYou saying that its \"not okay\" would imply that its somehow immoral or breaking some social etiquette.",
"date": "2024-01-19",
"id": "king30m",
"parent_id": "19ato86",
"score": 7,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
"body": "Yesterday during my session with my therapist, she said it's okay to ask a woman's friend's about them if I'm interested in them. For example, if I ask if the person is single, they may say \"Yes, she is single, she might be interested\" or \"No, she has a boyfriend, sorry\", for example.\n\nHowever, I've been hesitant to do that and I like to treat crushes as a one-man, \"no one but yourself, trust no one\" job. This is for a few main reasons:\n\n1. I feel that it would be putting my energy into the wrong thing. People say that you should talk to the woman DIRECTLY when pursuing a relationship. This means gauging her potential interest through social cues, stating your intentions/asking her on a date, etc. I think telling other people you like a woman carries the risk of them passing the knowledge to your love interest *before* you can state your feelings directly, which can show a lack of confidence. It would block direct communication of your feelings and thereby reduce the chances of a *clearly communicated* romantic relationship. Why spend time and energy trying to learn about a woman and communicate your interests *through* another person when you could use the same time and energy to ask her out, get to know her better, and gauge her interest via social cues? Why do all sorts of crowdsourcing and gathering enough information to write a research paper over... a simple crush? Something that plenty of people have and can handle with ease?\n\n2. The woman's mutual friends aren't obligated to give me info about her. In fact, they may even give me the wrong info if they aren't comfortable giving me true information, which could screw me over in the long run. All of that could be avoided by cutting all the extra people out of the equation and talking to the woman directly.\n\n3. I feel that it entirely misses the point of dating. If you want to establish a relationship, people say, state your intentions and ask her out. The question is not: \"Is she single?\" \"Does she have a boyfriend?\" The question is: \"How can I communicate my intentions and seeing if this person likes me back?\" Do I want to find out if a woman is *single*, or if I have relationship potential with said woman?\n\nMy hesitation comes from poor experiences in grade school. Two that come to mind are:\n\n1. Senior year of HS. I liked a girl from band. Her friend posted on his Snapchat story responding to an anonymous comment. The comment asked \"Is [crush] single?\" to which he responded \"Yeah, go hit her up\". I commented on the post asking how I can do that. He didn't directly answer the question, and instead asked \"Did you ask that?\" The conversation didn't continue after that. A few weeks later, I heard the girl was dating the male friend in question. On his story, he responded to an anonymous comment asking \"Are you and [crush] dating?\" by confirming the statement.\n\n2. Also senior year of HS. I tried pursuing a relationship with a girl from my class, and I admit I was not in the right in this situation because I didn't take signals of her not being interested, mistook friendliness for romantic attraction, and became distressed over not getting what I wanted. I asked several of my classmates if she was single, to which I got several different answers. Most of them just didn't know, some of them said she was single but not looking for a romantic partner, some of them said she had a boyfriend, and even one of them said she was flirting with a guy but I could somehow \"overtake\" him if I tried hard enough. One day I asked the girl \"are you dating someone\", to which she said no but it was an uncomfortable no. I admit this was a big mistake on my part. I strongly believe some of them told her I liked her. One day I messaged her asking about going to the beach during spring break with some of our peers, to which she said she would not be able to since she would be traveling out of the country. One day I was with some of her friends during the lunch break. They told me they knew I had a crush on her, so they tried videocalling her on my phone (it didn't go through), then asked what I would do if she had COVID (this was in 2020 right before quarantine), then dared me to sing a song about her. One of them also told me she would actually not be traveling out of the country and therefore could bring her on the beach trip. A few days later, the girl blocked me on my socials and the beach trip didn't happen due to quarantine. I was shocked because I felt that \"I did everything I was supposed to do, and I still got blocked.\"\n\nMy trust in other people went down after that and since then I became scared of asking for advice about a specific person from my peers out of fear of being given the wrong information and fucked over as a result. \n\nHowever, I have begun making some effort to rebuild my trust with my peers in that sense. It was only recently in early 2023 that I opened up to a select few of my closest friends about a platonic obsession (squish) with a female friend, and after opening up to them I felt a million times better. Now I would like to further open myself up and feel more comfortable about telling my peers about romance.\n\nCMV",
"date": "2024-01-19",
"id": "19ato86",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: It's not okay to ask for advice about a potential love interest from another friend.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/19ato86/cmv_its_not_okay_to_ask_for_advice_about_a/"
},
{
"author": "Lylieth",
"body": "Your personal experiences does not establish this to be true for everyone. It can far easier to ask a close friend of who you like; if you are not comfortable asking who you like directly.\n\n1. I don't understand the energy bit; unless you are saying you should just ask them. But, then why are we here? IMO it also has zero to do with communicating through someone in this aspect. The intention is to obtain answers\\info ***before*** going directly to them, no? I mean, that is what I take from the title and proposition from you therapist.\n2. And? If you feel this why, why go through their friend? This isn't an always thing. It's just as possible you already know said person and have established trust, no? I don't understand the automatic assumption of a negative.\n3. You don't really follow through on this point, at least that I have taken away. Dating is to find out if you are good together more than just acquaintances\\friends. This can still be done by asking info about them first from their close friend, no? Why or why not?",
"date": "2024-01-19",
"id": "king6gx",
"parent_id": "19ato86",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
"body": "Yesterday during my session with my therapist, she said it's okay to ask a woman's friend's about them if I'm interested in them. For example, if I ask if the person is single, they may say \"Yes, she is single, she might be interested\" or \"No, she has a boyfriend, sorry\", for example.\n\nHowever, I've been hesitant to do that and I like to treat crushes as a one-man, \"no one but yourself, trust no one\" job. This is for a few main reasons:\n\n1. I feel that it would be putting my energy into the wrong thing. People say that you should talk to the woman DIRECTLY when pursuing a relationship. This means gauging her potential interest through social cues, stating your intentions/asking her on a date, etc. I think telling other people you like a woman carries the risk of them passing the knowledge to your love interest *before* you can state your feelings directly, which can show a lack of confidence. It would block direct communication of your feelings and thereby reduce the chances of a *clearly communicated* romantic relationship. Why spend time and energy trying to learn about a woman and communicate your interests *through* another person when you could use the same time and energy to ask her out, get to know her better, and gauge her interest via social cues? Why do all sorts of crowdsourcing and gathering enough information to write a research paper over... a simple crush? Something that plenty of people have and can handle with ease?\n\n2. The woman's mutual friends aren't obligated to give me info about her. In fact, they may even give me the wrong info if they aren't comfortable giving me true information, which could screw me over in the long run. All of that could be avoided by cutting all the extra people out of the equation and talking to the woman directly.\n\n3. I feel that it entirely misses the point of dating. If you want to establish a relationship, people say, state your intentions and ask her out. The question is not: \"Is she single?\" \"Does she have a boyfriend?\" The question is: \"How can I communicate my intentions and seeing if this person likes me back?\" Do I want to find out if a woman is *single*, or if I have relationship potential with said woman?\n\nMy hesitation comes from poor experiences in grade school. Two that come to mind are:\n\n1. Senior year of HS. I liked a girl from band. Her friend posted on his Snapchat story responding to an anonymous comment. The comment asked \"Is [crush] single?\" to which he responded \"Yeah, go hit her up\". I commented on the post asking how I can do that. He didn't directly answer the question, and instead asked \"Did you ask that?\" The conversation didn't continue after that. A few weeks later, I heard the girl was dating the male friend in question. On his story, he responded to an anonymous comment asking \"Are you and [crush] dating?\" by confirming the statement.\n\n2. Also senior year of HS. I tried pursuing a relationship with a girl from my class, and I admit I was not in the right in this situation because I didn't take signals of her not being interested, mistook friendliness for romantic attraction, and became distressed over not getting what I wanted. I asked several of my classmates if she was single, to which I got several different answers. Most of them just didn't know, some of them said she was single but not looking for a romantic partner, some of them said she had a boyfriend, and even one of them said she was flirting with a guy but I could somehow \"overtake\" him if I tried hard enough. One day I asked the girl \"are you dating someone\", to which she said no but it was an uncomfortable no. I admit this was a big mistake on my part. I strongly believe some of them told her I liked her. One day I messaged her asking about going to the beach during spring break with some of our peers, to which she said she would not be able to since she would be traveling out of the country. One day I was with some of her friends during the lunch break. They told me they knew I had a crush on her, so they tried videocalling her on my phone (it didn't go through), then asked what I would do if she had COVID (this was in 2020 right before quarantine), then dared me to sing a song about her. One of them also told me she would actually not be traveling out of the country and therefore could bring her on the beach trip. A few days later, the girl blocked me on my socials and the beach trip didn't happen due to quarantine. I was shocked because I felt that \"I did everything I was supposed to do, and I still got blocked.\"\n\nMy trust in other people went down after that and since then I became scared of asking for advice about a specific person from my peers out of fear of being given the wrong information and fucked over as a result. \n\nHowever, I have begun making some effort to rebuild my trust with my peers in that sense. It was only recently in early 2023 that I opened up to a select few of my closest friends about a platonic obsession (squish) with a female friend, and after opening up to them I felt a million times better. Now I would like to further open myself up and feel more comfortable about telling my peers about romance.\n\nCMV",
"date": "2024-01-19",
"id": "19ato86",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: It's not okay to ask for advice about a potential love interest from another friend.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/19ato86/cmv_its_not_okay_to_ask_for_advice_about_a/"
},
{
"author": "guile_theme",
"body": "Do not ask anyone out until you have a better grasp on what other people are.",
"date": "2024-01-19",
"id": "kingvfr",
"parent_id": "19ato86",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
"body": "Yesterday during my session with my therapist, she said it's okay to ask a woman's friend's about them if I'm interested in them. For example, if I ask if the person is single, they may say \"Yes, she is single, she might be interested\" or \"No, she has a boyfriend, sorry\", for example.\n\nHowever, I've been hesitant to do that and I like to treat crushes as a one-man, \"no one but yourself, trust no one\" job. This is for a few main reasons:\n\n1. I feel that it would be putting my energy into the wrong thing. People say that you should talk to the woman DIRECTLY when pursuing a relationship. This means gauging her potential interest through social cues, stating your intentions/asking her on a date, etc. I think telling other people you like a woman carries the risk of them passing the knowledge to your love interest *before* you can state your feelings directly, which can show a lack of confidence. It would block direct communication of your feelings and thereby reduce the chances of a *clearly communicated* romantic relationship. Why spend time and energy trying to learn about a woman and communicate your interests *through* another person when you could use the same time and energy to ask her out, get to know her better, and gauge her interest via social cues? Why do all sorts of crowdsourcing and gathering enough information to write a research paper over... a simple crush? Something that plenty of people have and can handle with ease?\n\n2. The woman's mutual friends aren't obligated to give me info about her. In fact, they may even give me the wrong info if they aren't comfortable giving me true information, which could screw me over in the long run. All of that could be avoided by cutting all the extra people out of the equation and talking to the woman directly.\n\n3. I feel that it entirely misses the point of dating. If you want to establish a relationship, people say, state your intentions and ask her out. The question is not: \"Is she single?\" \"Does she have a boyfriend?\" The question is: \"How can I communicate my intentions and seeing if this person likes me back?\" Do I want to find out if a woman is *single*, or if I have relationship potential with said woman?\n\nMy hesitation comes from poor experiences in grade school. Two that come to mind are:\n\n1. Senior year of HS. I liked a girl from band. Her friend posted on his Snapchat story responding to an anonymous comment. The comment asked \"Is [crush] single?\" to which he responded \"Yeah, go hit her up\". I commented on the post asking how I can do that. He didn't directly answer the question, and instead asked \"Did you ask that?\" The conversation didn't continue after that. A few weeks later, I heard the girl was dating the male friend in question. On his story, he responded to an anonymous comment asking \"Are you and [crush] dating?\" by confirming the statement.\n\n2. Also senior year of HS. I tried pursuing a relationship with a girl from my class, and I admit I was not in the right in this situation because I didn't take signals of her not being interested, mistook friendliness for romantic attraction, and became distressed over not getting what I wanted. I asked several of my classmates if she was single, to which I got several different answers. Most of them just didn't know, some of them said she was single but not looking for a romantic partner, some of them said she had a boyfriend, and even one of them said she was flirting with a guy but I could somehow \"overtake\" him if I tried hard enough. One day I asked the girl \"are you dating someone\", to which she said no but it was an uncomfortable no. I admit this was a big mistake on my part. I strongly believe some of them told her I liked her. One day I messaged her asking about going to the beach during spring break with some of our peers, to which she said she would not be able to since she would be traveling out of the country. One day I was with some of her friends during the lunch break. They told me they knew I had a crush on her, so they tried videocalling her on my phone (it didn't go through), then asked what I would do if she had COVID (this was in 2020 right before quarantine), then dared me to sing a song about her. One of them also told me she would actually not be traveling out of the country and therefore could bring her on the beach trip. A few days later, the girl blocked me on my socials and the beach trip didn't happen due to quarantine. I was shocked because I felt that \"I did everything I was supposed to do, and I still got blocked.\"\n\nMy trust in other people went down after that and since then I became scared of asking for advice about a specific person from my peers out of fear of being given the wrong information and fucked over as a result. \n\nHowever, I have begun making some effort to rebuild my trust with my peers in that sense. It was only recently in early 2023 that I opened up to a select few of my closest friends about a platonic obsession (squish) with a female friend, and after opening up to them I felt a million times better. Now I would like to further open myself up and feel more comfortable about telling my peers about romance.\n\nCMV",
"date": "2024-01-19",
"id": "19ato86",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: It's not okay to ask for advice about a potential love interest from another friend.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/19ato86/cmv_its_not_okay_to_ask_for_advice_about_a/"
},
{
"author": "listenyall",
"body": "Of course it's ok. Before the internet, this is how relationships happened--you met a friend of a friend somewhere, you say to your mutual friend \"hey I really liked meeting X on Saturday, do you know if she's single? Do you think we'd get along?\" and then if the answer is yes you ask the person out. \n\n\nIt is of course not a replacement for talking to someone directly, but can be a very useful first step, especially in situations where you know the friend of the person you are interested in well but don't know them well at all.",
"date": "2024-01-19",
"id": "kini587",
"parent_id": "19ato86",
"score": 5,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
"body": "Yesterday during my session with my therapist, she said it's okay to ask a woman's friend's about them if I'm interested in them. For example, if I ask if the person is single, they may say \"Yes, she is single, she might be interested\" or \"No, she has a boyfriend, sorry\", for example.\n\nHowever, I've been hesitant to do that and I like to treat crushes as a one-man, \"no one but yourself, trust no one\" job. This is for a few main reasons:\n\n1. I feel that it would be putting my energy into the wrong thing. People say that you should talk to the woman DIRECTLY when pursuing a relationship. This means gauging her potential interest through social cues, stating your intentions/asking her on a date, etc. I think telling other people you like a woman carries the risk of them passing the knowledge to your love interest *before* you can state your feelings directly, which can show a lack of confidence. It would block direct communication of your feelings and thereby reduce the chances of a *clearly communicated* romantic relationship. Why spend time and energy trying to learn about a woman and communicate your interests *through* another person when you could use the same time and energy to ask her out, get to know her better, and gauge her interest via social cues? Why do all sorts of crowdsourcing and gathering enough information to write a research paper over... a simple crush? Something that plenty of people have and can handle with ease?\n\n2. The woman's mutual friends aren't obligated to give me info about her. In fact, they may even give me the wrong info if they aren't comfortable giving me true information, which could screw me over in the long run. All of that could be avoided by cutting all the extra people out of the equation and talking to the woman directly.\n\n3. I feel that it entirely misses the point of dating. If you want to establish a relationship, people say, state your intentions and ask her out. The question is not: \"Is she single?\" \"Does she have a boyfriend?\" The question is: \"How can I communicate my intentions and seeing if this person likes me back?\" Do I want to find out if a woman is *single*, or if I have relationship potential with said woman?\n\nMy hesitation comes from poor experiences in grade school. Two that come to mind are:\n\n1. Senior year of HS. I liked a girl from band. Her friend posted on his Snapchat story responding to an anonymous comment. The comment asked \"Is [crush] single?\" to which he responded \"Yeah, go hit her up\". I commented on the post asking how I can do that. He didn't directly answer the question, and instead asked \"Did you ask that?\" The conversation didn't continue after that. A few weeks later, I heard the girl was dating the male friend in question. On his story, he responded to an anonymous comment asking \"Are you and [crush] dating?\" by confirming the statement.\n\n2. Also senior year of HS. I tried pursuing a relationship with a girl from my class, and I admit I was not in the right in this situation because I didn't take signals of her not being interested, mistook friendliness for romantic attraction, and became distressed over not getting what I wanted. I asked several of my classmates if she was single, to which I got several different answers. Most of them just didn't know, some of them said she was single but not looking for a romantic partner, some of them said she had a boyfriend, and even one of them said she was flirting with a guy but I could somehow \"overtake\" him if I tried hard enough. One day I asked the girl \"are you dating someone\", to which she said no but it was an uncomfortable no. I admit this was a big mistake on my part. I strongly believe some of them told her I liked her. One day I messaged her asking about going to the beach during spring break with some of our peers, to which she said she would not be able to since she would be traveling out of the country. One day I was with some of her friends during the lunch break. They told me they knew I had a crush on her, so they tried videocalling her on my phone (it didn't go through), then asked what I would do if she had COVID (this was in 2020 right before quarantine), then dared me to sing a song about her. One of them also told me she would actually not be traveling out of the country and therefore could bring her on the beach trip. A few days later, the girl blocked me on my socials and the beach trip didn't happen due to quarantine. I was shocked because I felt that \"I did everything I was supposed to do, and I still got blocked.\"\n\nMy trust in other people went down after that and since then I became scared of asking for advice about a specific person from my peers out of fear of being given the wrong information and fucked over as a result. \n\nHowever, I have begun making some effort to rebuild my trust with my peers in that sense. It was only recently in early 2023 that I opened up to a select few of my closest friends about a platonic obsession (squish) with a female friend, and after opening up to them I felt a million times better. Now I would like to further open myself up and feel more comfortable about telling my peers about romance.\n\nCMV",
"date": "2024-01-19",
"id": "19ato86",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: It's not okay to ask for advice about a potential love interest from another friend.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/19ato86/cmv_its_not_okay_to_ask_for_advice_about_a/"
},
{
"author": "Grandemestizo",
"body": "Buddy, you need to relax. Take a deep breath and get out of the war room. This isn't a puzzle to be solved or a science to research. If you're interested in a person, casually get to know them. If a woman sees that you're planning and strategizing and gathering intel on her, she's gonna think you're some kind of weirdo.",
"date": "2024-01-19",
"id": "kinqpky",
"parent_id": "19ato86",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
"body": "Yesterday during my session with my therapist, she said it's okay to ask a woman's friend's about them if I'm interested in them. For example, if I ask if the person is single, they may say \"Yes, she is single, she might be interested\" or \"No, she has a boyfriend, sorry\", for example.\n\nHowever, I've been hesitant to do that and I like to treat crushes as a one-man, \"no one but yourself, trust no one\" job. This is for a few main reasons:\n\n1. I feel that it would be putting my energy into the wrong thing. People say that you should talk to the woman DIRECTLY when pursuing a relationship. This means gauging her potential interest through social cues, stating your intentions/asking her on a date, etc. I think telling other people you like a woman carries the risk of them passing the knowledge to your love interest *before* you can state your feelings directly, which can show a lack of confidence. It would block direct communication of your feelings and thereby reduce the chances of a *clearly communicated* romantic relationship. Why spend time and energy trying to learn about a woman and communicate your interests *through* another person when you could use the same time and energy to ask her out, get to know her better, and gauge her interest via social cues? Why do all sorts of crowdsourcing and gathering enough information to write a research paper over... a simple crush? Something that plenty of people have and can handle with ease?\n\n2. The woman's mutual friends aren't obligated to give me info about her. In fact, they may even give me the wrong info if they aren't comfortable giving me true information, which could screw me over in the long run. All of that could be avoided by cutting all the extra people out of the equation and talking to the woman directly.\n\n3. I feel that it entirely misses the point of dating. If you want to establish a relationship, people say, state your intentions and ask her out. The question is not: \"Is she single?\" \"Does she have a boyfriend?\" The question is: \"How can I communicate my intentions and seeing if this person likes me back?\" Do I want to find out if a woman is *single*, or if I have relationship potential with said woman?\n\nMy hesitation comes from poor experiences in grade school. Two that come to mind are:\n\n1. Senior year of HS. I liked a girl from band. Her friend posted on his Snapchat story responding to an anonymous comment. The comment asked \"Is [crush] single?\" to which he responded \"Yeah, go hit her up\". I commented on the post asking how I can do that. He didn't directly answer the question, and instead asked \"Did you ask that?\" The conversation didn't continue after that. A few weeks later, I heard the girl was dating the male friend in question. On his story, he responded to an anonymous comment asking \"Are you and [crush] dating?\" by confirming the statement.\n\n2. Also senior year of HS. I tried pursuing a relationship with a girl from my class, and I admit I was not in the right in this situation because I didn't take signals of her not being interested, mistook friendliness for romantic attraction, and became distressed over not getting what I wanted. I asked several of my classmates if she was single, to which I got several different answers. Most of them just didn't know, some of them said she was single but not looking for a romantic partner, some of them said she had a boyfriend, and even one of them said she was flirting with a guy but I could somehow \"overtake\" him if I tried hard enough. One day I asked the girl \"are you dating someone\", to which she said no but it was an uncomfortable no. I admit this was a big mistake on my part. I strongly believe some of them told her I liked her. One day I messaged her asking about going to the beach during spring break with some of our peers, to which she said she would not be able to since she would be traveling out of the country. One day I was with some of her friends during the lunch break. They told me they knew I had a crush on her, so they tried videocalling her on my phone (it didn't go through), then asked what I would do if she had COVID (this was in 2020 right before quarantine), then dared me to sing a song about her. One of them also told me she would actually not be traveling out of the country and therefore could bring her on the beach trip. A few days later, the girl blocked me on my socials and the beach trip didn't happen due to quarantine. I was shocked because I felt that \"I did everything I was supposed to do, and I still got blocked.\"\n\nMy trust in other people went down after that and since then I became scared of asking for advice about a specific person from my peers out of fear of being given the wrong information and fucked over as a result. \n\nHowever, I have begun making some effort to rebuild my trust with my peers in that sense. It was only recently in early 2023 that I opened up to a select few of my closest friends about a platonic obsession (squish) with a female friend, and after opening up to them I felt a million times better. Now I would like to further open myself up and feel more comfortable about telling my peers about romance.\n\nCMV",
"date": "2024-01-19",
"id": "19ato86",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: It's not okay to ask for advice about a potential love interest from another friend.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/19ato86/cmv_its_not_okay_to_ask_for_advice_about_a/"
},
{
"author": "AstronomerParticular",
"body": "I think you are kinda missing the point. \n\nYou should not ask 10 people if someone is single and how to approach them. This is just creepy.\n\nJust ask one of their friend \"Hey is ... single.\" If they say yes then you can try flirting with them. If they say no just move on.\n\nThe problem with flirting directly is that it can be very unconfortable for people who are in a relationship. \n\nAlso it does not really matter if the friend tells them that you asked. When they suddenly start avoiding you then you already did not have a chance form the start.",
"date": "2024-01-19",
"id": "kinqqfy",
"parent_id": "19ato86",
"score": 4,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
"body": "Yesterday during my session with my therapist, she said it's okay to ask a woman's friend's about them if I'm interested in them. For example, if I ask if the person is single, they may say \"Yes, she is single, she might be interested\" or \"No, she has a boyfriend, sorry\", for example.\n\nHowever, I've been hesitant to do that and I like to treat crushes as a one-man, \"no one but yourself, trust no one\" job. This is for a few main reasons:\n\n1. I feel that it would be putting my energy into the wrong thing. People say that you should talk to the woman DIRECTLY when pursuing a relationship. This means gauging her potential interest through social cues, stating your intentions/asking her on a date, etc. I think telling other people you like a woman carries the risk of them passing the knowledge to your love interest *before* you can state your feelings directly, which can show a lack of confidence. It would block direct communication of your feelings and thereby reduce the chances of a *clearly communicated* romantic relationship. Why spend time and energy trying to learn about a woman and communicate your interests *through* another person when you could use the same time and energy to ask her out, get to know her better, and gauge her interest via social cues? Why do all sorts of crowdsourcing and gathering enough information to write a research paper over... a simple crush? Something that plenty of people have and can handle with ease?\n\n2. The woman's mutual friends aren't obligated to give me info about her. In fact, they may even give me the wrong info if they aren't comfortable giving me true information, which could screw me over in the long run. All of that could be avoided by cutting all the extra people out of the equation and talking to the woman directly.\n\n3. I feel that it entirely misses the point of dating. If you want to establish a relationship, people say, state your intentions and ask her out. The question is not: \"Is she single?\" \"Does she have a boyfriend?\" The question is: \"How can I communicate my intentions and seeing if this person likes me back?\" Do I want to find out if a woman is *single*, or if I have relationship potential with said woman?\n\nMy hesitation comes from poor experiences in grade school. Two that come to mind are:\n\n1. Senior year of HS. I liked a girl from band. Her friend posted on his Snapchat story responding to an anonymous comment. The comment asked \"Is [crush] single?\" to which he responded \"Yeah, go hit her up\". I commented on the post asking how I can do that. He didn't directly answer the question, and instead asked \"Did you ask that?\" The conversation didn't continue after that. A few weeks later, I heard the girl was dating the male friend in question. On his story, he responded to an anonymous comment asking \"Are you and [crush] dating?\" by confirming the statement.\n\n2. Also senior year of HS. I tried pursuing a relationship with a girl from my class, and I admit I was not in the right in this situation because I didn't take signals of her not being interested, mistook friendliness for romantic attraction, and became distressed over not getting what I wanted. I asked several of my classmates if she was single, to which I got several different answers. Most of them just didn't know, some of them said she was single but not looking for a romantic partner, some of them said she had a boyfriend, and even one of them said she was flirting with a guy but I could somehow \"overtake\" him if I tried hard enough. One day I asked the girl \"are you dating someone\", to which she said no but it was an uncomfortable no. I admit this was a big mistake on my part. I strongly believe some of them told her I liked her. One day I messaged her asking about going to the beach during spring break with some of our peers, to which she said she would not be able to since she would be traveling out of the country. One day I was with some of her friends during the lunch break. They told me they knew I had a crush on her, so they tried videocalling her on my phone (it didn't go through), then asked what I would do if she had COVID (this was in 2020 right before quarantine), then dared me to sing a song about her. One of them also told me she would actually not be traveling out of the country and therefore could bring her on the beach trip. A few days later, the girl blocked me on my socials and the beach trip didn't happen due to quarantine. I was shocked because I felt that \"I did everything I was supposed to do, and I still got blocked.\"\n\nMy trust in other people went down after that and since then I became scared of asking for advice about a specific person from my peers out of fear of being given the wrong information and fucked over as a result. \n\nHowever, I have begun making some effort to rebuild my trust with my peers in that sense. It was only recently in early 2023 that I opened up to a select few of my closest friends about a platonic obsession (squish) with a female friend, and after opening up to them I felt a million times better. Now I would like to further open myself up and feel more comfortable about telling my peers about romance.\n\nCMV",
"date": "2024-01-19",
"id": "19ato86",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: It's not okay to ask for advice about a potential love interest from another friend.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/19ato86/cmv_its_not_okay_to_ask_for_advice_about_a/"
},
{
"author": "SaberTruth2",
"body": "You’re an adult now, do not base your decisions on something that happened in HS. It’s not perfect in every situation, but it’s a very good idea in many. A lot depends on your relationship/familiarity with her and the friend. Every case is different and I’m sure it makes for a better story to go it alone, but any good friend is not only gonna tell you if it’s a good idea, but potentially help you woo her.",
"date": "2024-01-19",
"id": "kioeasc",
"parent_id": "19ato86",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
"body": "Yesterday during my session with my therapist, she said it's okay to ask a woman's friend's about them if I'm interested in them. For example, if I ask if the person is single, they may say \"Yes, she is single, she might be interested\" or \"No, she has a boyfriend, sorry\", for example.\n\nHowever, I've been hesitant to do that and I like to treat crushes as a one-man, \"no one but yourself, trust no one\" job. This is for a few main reasons:\n\n1. I feel that it would be putting my energy into the wrong thing. People say that you should talk to the woman DIRECTLY when pursuing a relationship. This means gauging her potential interest through social cues, stating your intentions/asking her on a date, etc. I think telling other people you like a woman carries the risk of them passing the knowledge to your love interest *before* you can state your feelings directly, which can show a lack of confidence. It would block direct communication of your feelings and thereby reduce the chances of a *clearly communicated* romantic relationship. Why spend time and energy trying to learn about a woman and communicate your interests *through* another person when you could use the same time and energy to ask her out, get to know her better, and gauge her interest via social cues? Why do all sorts of crowdsourcing and gathering enough information to write a research paper over... a simple crush? Something that plenty of people have and can handle with ease?\n\n2. The woman's mutual friends aren't obligated to give me info about her. In fact, they may even give me the wrong info if they aren't comfortable giving me true information, which could screw me over in the long run. All of that could be avoided by cutting all the extra people out of the equation and talking to the woman directly.\n\n3. I feel that it entirely misses the point of dating. If you want to establish a relationship, people say, state your intentions and ask her out. The question is not: \"Is she single?\" \"Does she have a boyfriend?\" The question is: \"How can I communicate my intentions and seeing if this person likes me back?\" Do I want to find out if a woman is *single*, or if I have relationship potential with said woman?\n\nMy hesitation comes from poor experiences in grade school. Two that come to mind are:\n\n1. Senior year of HS. I liked a girl from band. Her friend posted on his Snapchat story responding to an anonymous comment. The comment asked \"Is [crush] single?\" to which he responded \"Yeah, go hit her up\". I commented on the post asking how I can do that. He didn't directly answer the question, and instead asked \"Did you ask that?\" The conversation didn't continue after that. A few weeks later, I heard the girl was dating the male friend in question. On his story, he responded to an anonymous comment asking \"Are you and [crush] dating?\" by confirming the statement.\n\n2. Also senior year of HS. I tried pursuing a relationship with a girl from my class, and I admit I was not in the right in this situation because I didn't take signals of her not being interested, mistook friendliness for romantic attraction, and became distressed over not getting what I wanted. I asked several of my classmates if she was single, to which I got several different answers. Most of them just didn't know, some of them said she was single but not looking for a romantic partner, some of them said she had a boyfriend, and even one of them said she was flirting with a guy but I could somehow \"overtake\" him if I tried hard enough. One day I asked the girl \"are you dating someone\", to which she said no but it was an uncomfortable no. I admit this was a big mistake on my part. I strongly believe some of them told her I liked her. One day I messaged her asking about going to the beach during spring break with some of our peers, to which she said she would not be able to since she would be traveling out of the country. One day I was with some of her friends during the lunch break. They told me they knew I had a crush on her, so they tried videocalling her on my phone (it didn't go through), then asked what I would do if she had COVID (this was in 2020 right before quarantine), then dared me to sing a song about her. One of them also told me she would actually not be traveling out of the country and therefore could bring her on the beach trip. A few days later, the girl blocked me on my socials and the beach trip didn't happen due to quarantine. I was shocked because I felt that \"I did everything I was supposed to do, and I still got blocked.\"\n\nMy trust in other people went down after that and since then I became scared of asking for advice about a specific person from my peers out of fear of being given the wrong information and fucked over as a result. \n\nHowever, I have begun making some effort to rebuild my trust with my peers in that sense. It was only recently in early 2023 that I opened up to a select few of my closest friends about a platonic obsession (squish) with a female friend, and after opening up to them I felt a million times better. Now I would like to further open myself up and feel more comfortable about telling my peers about romance.\n\nCMV",
"date": "2024-01-19",
"id": "19ato86",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: It's not okay to ask for advice about a potential love interest from another friend.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/19ato86/cmv_its_not_okay_to_ask_for_advice_about_a/"
},
{
"author": "Isogash",
"body": "There's a common problem in younger people who don't have much relationship experience where they think of dating like a difficult videogame level. When they do something and it leads to perceived \"failure\" they tend to believe that they made a mistake or went wrong somewhere; that there was some path to success and it got fucked along the way. There's then a tendency to try and compensate for or control their dating behaviour to avoid repeating the same perceived mistakes.\n\nThe reality is quite starkly different: there is no script for success. The *only* thing that matters in dating is whether or not the other person is also interested in you, and you have no control over this, practically speaking. In fact, if someone is *really* interested in you too, everything could go more or less completely wrong and you'd still end up together (assuming the practicality of it actually works.) If someone needs you to jump through a bunch of specific hoops in order for them to be interested, that should actually be raising some red flags: it means there is a lack of genuine interest. They would drop those hoops for someone they were really interested in.\n\nIn answer to your original question with this established, asking about someone's relationship status is a totally normal thing adults do all the time. It's less awkward for most people than asking directly and the mutual friend to warn you if you are risk of offending them (even though being romantically interested is not a problem itself, some people get freaked out by it because they themselves have problems.) After all your intention is only to figure out whether or not there is potential for *mutual* interest in a healthy relationship here. It's still just a first step, the next being to talk to the person directly and see if they are receptive.\n\nSo, you never really got fucked over. It was clearly a no go from the start and the friends you asked gave you conflicting answers probably because not all of them know her as well as each other. The ones who said she wasn't interested were probably right, and there's nothing you could have done about it. It's not a reflection of anything wrong with you. For all you know, she could be exclusively attracted to clowns and just hasn't told anyone. It's totally up to her to be interested or not for any reason she likes.\n\nOf course, I am not at all saying that how you behave and the choices you make won't affect people's overall impression of you, nor that learning how to be more confident, mature and graceful in general isn't going to significantly raise the likelihood of people becoming romantically interested in you, and your repuation in general too (people talk!) However, these are big *long term* changes in behaviour that will come with more life experience, they aren't things you will be able to learn overnight (but don't let that stop you from practicing!)\n\nTrust that investing time into building your character will be the best thing in better preparing you for success in your future relationships, and that looking for **genuine** ***mutual*** **interest** is the de factor recipe for success when dating. Be yourself and stop trying to follow a script and remember that a crush or date not working out is *not* failure, it is success.",
"date": "2024-01-20",
"id": "kipd4qz",
"parent_id": "19ato86",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
"body": "Yesterday during my session with my therapist, she said it's okay to ask a woman's friend's about them if I'm interested in them. For example, if I ask if the person is single, they may say \"Yes, she is single, she might be interested\" or \"No, she has a boyfriend, sorry\", for example.\n\nHowever, I've been hesitant to do that and I like to treat crushes as a one-man, \"no one but yourself, trust no one\" job. This is for a few main reasons:\n\n1. I feel that it would be putting my energy into the wrong thing. People say that you should talk to the woman DIRECTLY when pursuing a relationship. This means gauging her potential interest through social cues, stating your intentions/asking her on a date, etc. I think telling other people you like a woman carries the risk of them passing the knowledge to your love interest *before* you can state your feelings directly, which can show a lack of confidence. It would block direct communication of your feelings and thereby reduce the chances of a *clearly communicated* romantic relationship. Why spend time and energy trying to learn about a woman and communicate your interests *through* another person when you could use the same time and energy to ask her out, get to know her better, and gauge her interest via social cues? Why do all sorts of crowdsourcing and gathering enough information to write a research paper over... a simple crush? Something that plenty of people have and can handle with ease?\n\n2. The woman's mutual friends aren't obligated to give me info about her. In fact, they may even give me the wrong info if they aren't comfortable giving me true information, which could screw me over in the long run. All of that could be avoided by cutting all the extra people out of the equation and talking to the woman directly.\n\n3. I feel that it entirely misses the point of dating. If you want to establish a relationship, people say, state your intentions and ask her out. The question is not: \"Is she single?\" \"Does she have a boyfriend?\" The question is: \"How can I communicate my intentions and seeing if this person likes me back?\" Do I want to find out if a woman is *single*, or if I have relationship potential with said woman?\n\nMy hesitation comes from poor experiences in grade school. Two that come to mind are:\n\n1. Senior year of HS. I liked a girl from band. Her friend posted on his Snapchat story responding to an anonymous comment. The comment asked \"Is [crush] single?\" to which he responded \"Yeah, go hit her up\". I commented on the post asking how I can do that. He didn't directly answer the question, and instead asked \"Did you ask that?\" The conversation didn't continue after that. A few weeks later, I heard the girl was dating the male friend in question. On his story, he responded to an anonymous comment asking \"Are you and [crush] dating?\" by confirming the statement.\n\n2. Also senior year of HS. I tried pursuing a relationship with a girl from my class, and I admit I was not in the right in this situation because I didn't take signals of her not being interested, mistook friendliness for romantic attraction, and became distressed over not getting what I wanted. I asked several of my classmates if she was single, to which I got several different answers. Most of them just didn't know, some of them said she was single but not looking for a romantic partner, some of them said she had a boyfriend, and even one of them said she was flirting with a guy but I could somehow \"overtake\" him if I tried hard enough. One day I asked the girl \"are you dating someone\", to which she said no but it was an uncomfortable no. I admit this was a big mistake on my part. I strongly believe some of them told her I liked her. One day I messaged her asking about going to the beach during spring break with some of our peers, to which she said she would not be able to since she would be traveling out of the country. One day I was with some of her friends during the lunch break. They told me they knew I had a crush on her, so they tried videocalling her on my phone (it didn't go through), then asked what I would do if she had COVID (this was in 2020 right before quarantine), then dared me to sing a song about her. One of them also told me she would actually not be traveling out of the country and therefore could bring her on the beach trip. A few days later, the girl blocked me on my socials and the beach trip didn't happen due to quarantine. I was shocked because I felt that \"I did everything I was supposed to do, and I still got blocked.\"\n\nMy trust in other people went down after that and since then I became scared of asking for advice about a specific person from my peers out of fear of being given the wrong information and fucked over as a result. \n\nHowever, I have begun making some effort to rebuild my trust with my peers in that sense. It was only recently in early 2023 that I opened up to a select few of my closest friends about a platonic obsession (squish) with a female friend, and after opening up to them I felt a million times better. Now I would like to further open myself up and feel more comfortable about telling my peers about romance.\n\nCMV",
"date": "2024-01-19",
"id": "19ato86",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: It's not okay to ask for advice about a potential love interest from another friend.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/19ato86/cmv_its_not_okay_to_ask_for_advice_about_a/"
},
{
"author": "oversoul00",
"body": "You're examples sound less like looking for basic information and more like you looking for comfort and support.\n\n\nIf there is a spectrum between indirect and direct you do want to be on the side of being direct but there is some wiggle room to casually mention an interest or ask if it's worth pursuing. ",
"date": "2024-01-20",
"id": "kipf1x3",
"parent_id": "19ato86",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
"body": "Yesterday during my session with my therapist, she said it's okay to ask a woman's friend's about them if I'm interested in them. For example, if I ask if the person is single, they may say \"Yes, she is single, she might be interested\" or \"No, she has a boyfriend, sorry\", for example.\n\nHowever, I've been hesitant to do that and I like to treat crushes as a one-man, \"no one but yourself, trust no one\" job. This is for a few main reasons:\n\n1. I feel that it would be putting my energy into the wrong thing. People say that you should talk to the woman DIRECTLY when pursuing a relationship. This means gauging her potential interest through social cues, stating your intentions/asking her on a date, etc. I think telling other people you like a woman carries the risk of them passing the knowledge to your love interest *before* you can state your feelings directly, which can show a lack of confidence. It would block direct communication of your feelings and thereby reduce the chances of a *clearly communicated* romantic relationship. Why spend time and energy trying to learn about a woman and communicate your interests *through* another person when you could use the same time and energy to ask her out, get to know her better, and gauge her interest via social cues? Why do all sorts of crowdsourcing and gathering enough information to write a research paper over... a simple crush? Something that plenty of people have and can handle with ease?\n\n2. The woman's mutual friends aren't obligated to give me info about her. In fact, they may even give me the wrong info if they aren't comfortable giving me true information, which could screw me over in the long run. All of that could be avoided by cutting all the extra people out of the equation and talking to the woman directly.\n\n3. I feel that it entirely misses the point of dating. If you want to establish a relationship, people say, state your intentions and ask her out. The question is not: \"Is she single?\" \"Does she have a boyfriend?\" The question is: \"How can I communicate my intentions and seeing if this person likes me back?\" Do I want to find out if a woman is *single*, or if I have relationship potential with said woman?\n\nMy hesitation comes from poor experiences in grade school. Two that come to mind are:\n\n1. Senior year of HS. I liked a girl from band. Her friend posted on his Snapchat story responding to an anonymous comment. The comment asked \"Is [crush] single?\" to which he responded \"Yeah, go hit her up\". I commented on the post asking how I can do that. He didn't directly answer the question, and instead asked \"Did you ask that?\" The conversation didn't continue after that. A few weeks later, I heard the girl was dating the male friend in question. On his story, he responded to an anonymous comment asking \"Are you and [crush] dating?\" by confirming the statement.\n\n2. Also senior year of HS. I tried pursuing a relationship with a girl from my class, and I admit I was not in the right in this situation because I didn't take signals of her not being interested, mistook friendliness for romantic attraction, and became distressed over not getting what I wanted. I asked several of my classmates if she was single, to which I got several different answers. Most of them just didn't know, some of them said she was single but not looking for a romantic partner, some of them said she had a boyfriend, and even one of them said she was flirting with a guy but I could somehow \"overtake\" him if I tried hard enough. One day I asked the girl \"are you dating someone\", to which she said no but it was an uncomfortable no. I admit this was a big mistake on my part. I strongly believe some of them told her I liked her. One day I messaged her asking about going to the beach during spring break with some of our peers, to which she said she would not be able to since she would be traveling out of the country. One day I was with some of her friends during the lunch break. They told me they knew I had a crush on her, so they tried videocalling her on my phone (it didn't go through), then asked what I would do if she had COVID (this was in 2020 right before quarantine), then dared me to sing a song about her. One of them also told me she would actually not be traveling out of the country and therefore could bring her on the beach trip. A few days later, the girl blocked me on my socials and the beach trip didn't happen due to quarantine. I was shocked because I felt that \"I did everything I was supposed to do, and I still got blocked.\"\n\nMy trust in other people went down after that and since then I became scared of asking for advice about a specific person from my peers out of fear of being given the wrong information and fucked over as a result. \n\nHowever, I have begun making some effort to rebuild my trust with my peers in that sense. It was only recently in early 2023 that I opened up to a select few of my closest friends about a platonic obsession (squish) with a female friend, and after opening up to them I felt a million times better. Now I would like to further open myself up and feel more comfortable about telling my peers about romance.\n\nCMV",
"date": "2024-01-19",
"id": "19ato86",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: It's not okay to ask for advice about a potential love interest from another friend.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/19ato86/cmv_its_not_okay_to_ask_for_advice_about_a/"
},
{
"author": "Atticus104",
"body": "You can ask for advice from a mutual friend about someone you are interested in. Done well it demostrates you are serious, and that you respect their friends opinions, but there are some ways to do this and way it shouldn't be done. \n\nLimit the number of people you mention this to only 1 or 2 people. Asking a bunch of people behind her back while not speaking to her directly set up the situation where she likely felt powerless with a lot of attetnion on her, as not everyone is watching for signs of you haveing made a move. It is not a good feeling, and she could resent you for it. In stead if you are curious if they are seeing someone, wait for a time to ask subtly. Less you seem over eager the better. \n\nThere is not a secret formula for success, you will be rejected time to time. The difference knowing how not to get blocked is knowing when quit. You keep an aquintance, who may one day connect you to a better match. you never know.",
"date": "2024-01-20",
"id": "kipfyra",
"parent_id": "19ato86",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
"body": "Yesterday during my session with my therapist, she said it's okay to ask a woman's friend's about them if I'm interested in them. For example, if I ask if the person is single, they may say \"Yes, she is single, she might be interested\" or \"No, she has a boyfriend, sorry\", for example.\n\nHowever, I've been hesitant to do that and I like to treat crushes as a one-man, \"no one but yourself, trust no one\" job. This is for a few main reasons:\n\n1. I feel that it would be putting my energy into the wrong thing. People say that you should talk to the woman DIRECTLY when pursuing a relationship. This means gauging her potential interest through social cues, stating your intentions/asking her on a date, etc. I think telling other people you like a woman carries the risk of them passing the knowledge to your love interest *before* you can state your feelings directly, which can show a lack of confidence. It would block direct communication of your feelings and thereby reduce the chances of a *clearly communicated* romantic relationship. Why spend time and energy trying to learn about a woman and communicate your interests *through* another person when you could use the same time and energy to ask her out, get to know her better, and gauge her interest via social cues? Why do all sorts of crowdsourcing and gathering enough information to write a research paper over... a simple crush? Something that plenty of people have and can handle with ease?\n\n2. The woman's mutual friends aren't obligated to give me info about her. In fact, they may even give me the wrong info if they aren't comfortable giving me true information, which could screw me over in the long run. All of that could be avoided by cutting all the extra people out of the equation and talking to the woman directly.\n\n3. I feel that it entirely misses the point of dating. If you want to establish a relationship, people say, state your intentions and ask her out. The question is not: \"Is she single?\" \"Does she have a boyfriend?\" The question is: \"How can I communicate my intentions and seeing if this person likes me back?\" Do I want to find out if a woman is *single*, or if I have relationship potential with said woman?\n\nMy hesitation comes from poor experiences in grade school. Two that come to mind are:\n\n1. Senior year of HS. I liked a girl from band. Her friend posted on his Snapchat story responding to an anonymous comment. The comment asked \"Is [crush] single?\" to which he responded \"Yeah, go hit her up\". I commented on the post asking how I can do that. He didn't directly answer the question, and instead asked \"Did you ask that?\" The conversation didn't continue after that. A few weeks later, I heard the girl was dating the male friend in question. On his story, he responded to an anonymous comment asking \"Are you and [crush] dating?\" by confirming the statement.\n\n2. Also senior year of HS. I tried pursuing a relationship with a girl from my class, and I admit I was not in the right in this situation because I didn't take signals of her not being interested, mistook friendliness for romantic attraction, and became distressed over not getting what I wanted. I asked several of my classmates if she was single, to which I got several different answers. Most of them just didn't know, some of them said she was single but not looking for a romantic partner, some of them said she had a boyfriend, and even one of them said she was flirting with a guy but I could somehow \"overtake\" him if I tried hard enough. One day I asked the girl \"are you dating someone\", to which she said no but it was an uncomfortable no. I admit this was a big mistake on my part. I strongly believe some of them told her I liked her. One day I messaged her asking about going to the beach during spring break with some of our peers, to which she said she would not be able to since she would be traveling out of the country. One day I was with some of her friends during the lunch break. They told me they knew I had a crush on her, so they tried videocalling her on my phone (it didn't go through), then asked what I would do if she had COVID (this was in 2020 right before quarantine), then dared me to sing a song about her. One of them also told me she would actually not be traveling out of the country and therefore could bring her on the beach trip. A few days later, the girl blocked me on my socials and the beach trip didn't happen due to quarantine. I was shocked because I felt that \"I did everything I was supposed to do, and I still got blocked.\"\n\nMy trust in other people went down after that and since then I became scared of asking for advice about a specific person from my peers out of fear of being given the wrong information and fucked over as a result. \n\nHowever, I have begun making some effort to rebuild my trust with my peers in that sense. It was only recently in early 2023 that I opened up to a select few of my closest friends about a platonic obsession (squish) with a female friend, and after opening up to them I felt a million times better. Now I would like to further open myself up and feel more comfortable about telling my peers about romance.\n\nCMV",
"date": "2024-01-19",
"id": "19ato86",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: It's not okay to ask for advice about a potential love interest from another friend.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/19ato86/cmv_its_not_okay_to_ask_for_advice_about_a/"
},
{
"author": "FlyingNFireType",
"body": "I don't think her friend leaking information is a bad thing. One it prepares her for what is coming so there's less chance at a deer in the headlight moments and if you are really anxious/social awkward you're likely to fuck up your communication anyways and her friend can communicate it more clearly and give you more room for error and your initial attempt. Also people like people who they know like them more but that's not pure instant they need to process the information that the person likes them. All in all if the info got leaked you'd have a better chance.",
"date": "2024-01-20",
"id": "kiqhxtr",
"parent_id": "19ato86",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
]
]
| moderate |
[
{
"author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
"body": "Yesterday during my session with my therapist, she said it's okay to ask a woman's friend's about them if I'm interested in them. For example, if I ask if the person is single, they may say \"Yes, she is single, she might be interested\" or \"No, she has a boyfriend, sorry\", for example.\n\nHowever, I've been hesitant to do that and I like to treat crushes as a one-man, \"no one but yourself, trust no one\" job. This is for a few main reasons:\n\n1. I feel that it would be putting my energy into the wrong thing. People say that you should talk to the woman DIRECTLY when pursuing a relationship. This means gauging her potential interest through social cues, stating your intentions/asking her on a date, etc. I think telling other people you like a woman carries the risk of them passing the knowledge to your love interest *before* you can state your feelings directly, which can show a lack of confidence. It would block direct communication of your feelings and thereby reduce the chances of a *clearly communicated* romantic relationship. Why spend time and energy trying to learn about a woman and communicate your interests *through* another person when you could use the same time and energy to ask her out, get to know her better, and gauge her interest via social cues? Why do all sorts of crowdsourcing and gathering enough information to write a research paper over... a simple crush? Something that plenty of people have and can handle with ease?\n\n2. The woman's mutual friends aren't obligated to give me info about her. In fact, they may even give me the wrong info if they aren't comfortable giving me true information, which could screw me over in the long run. All of that could be avoided by cutting all the extra people out of the equation and talking to the woman directly.\n\n3. I feel that it entirely misses the point of dating. If you want to establish a relationship, people say, state your intentions and ask her out. The question is not: \"Is she single?\" \"Does she have a boyfriend?\" The question is: \"How can I communicate my intentions and seeing if this person likes me back?\" Do I want to find out if a woman is *single*, or if I have relationship potential with said woman?\n\nMy hesitation comes from poor experiences in grade school. Two that come to mind are:\n\n1. Senior year of HS. I liked a girl from band. Her friend posted on his Snapchat story responding to an anonymous comment. The comment asked \"Is [crush] single?\" to which he responded \"Yeah, go hit her up\". I commented on the post asking how I can do that. He didn't directly answer the question, and instead asked \"Did you ask that?\" The conversation didn't continue after that. A few weeks later, I heard the girl was dating the male friend in question. On his story, he responded to an anonymous comment asking \"Are you and [crush] dating?\" by confirming the statement.\n\n2. Also senior year of HS. I tried pursuing a relationship with a girl from my class, and I admit I was not in the right in this situation because I didn't take signals of her not being interested, mistook friendliness for romantic attraction, and became distressed over not getting what I wanted. I asked several of my classmates if she was single, to which I got several different answers. Most of them just didn't know, some of them said she was single but not looking for a romantic partner, some of them said she had a boyfriend, and even one of them said she was flirting with a guy but I could somehow \"overtake\" him if I tried hard enough. One day I asked the girl \"are you dating someone\", to which she said no but it was an uncomfortable no. I admit this was a big mistake on my part. I strongly believe some of them told her I liked her. One day I messaged her asking about going to the beach during spring break with some of our peers, to which she said she would not be able to since she would be traveling out of the country. One day I was with some of her friends during the lunch break. They told me they knew I had a crush on her, so they tried videocalling her on my phone (it didn't go through), then asked what I would do if she had COVID (this was in 2020 right before quarantine), then dared me to sing a song about her. One of them also told me she would actually not be traveling out of the country and therefore could bring her on the beach trip. A few days later, the girl blocked me on my socials and the beach trip didn't happen due to quarantine. I was shocked because I felt that \"I did everything I was supposed to do, and I still got blocked.\"\n\nMy trust in other people went down after that and since then I became scared of asking for advice about a specific person from my peers out of fear of being given the wrong information and fucked over as a result. \n\nHowever, I have begun making some effort to rebuild my trust with my peers in that sense. It was only recently in early 2023 that I opened up to a select few of my closest friends about a platonic obsession (squish) with a female friend, and after opening up to them I felt a million times better. Now I would like to further open myself up and feel more comfortable about telling my peers about romance.\n\nCMV",
"date": "2024-01-19",
"id": "19ato86",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: It's not okay to ask for advice about a potential love interest from another friend.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/19ato86/cmv_its_not_okay_to_ask_for_advice_about_a/"
},
{
"author": "billbar",
"body": "I think you're viewing 'asking for advice' as 'help with landing a date.' I almost always do a small amount of due diligence if I'm asking someone out with whom I have mutual friends, but I do it strictly to see if they are single and absolutely NOT to try and get said friend to help me out in any way. This way it avoids a potentially uncomfortable situation where she has to turn me down due to being in a relationship, or worse, me looking like I'm Mr. Stealyagurl.\n\nTo address your reasons:\n\n1) There is a huge gray area between talking to a bunch of people about a girl, getting her life story, etc. and simply asking one person if the girl is single. If you're going around asking 'several' of her classmates about her, yeah, that's bizarre, and it will for sure get back to her and show a lack of confidence. If you ask one person if she's single, the answer is yes, and you ask the girl out VERY shortly thereafter, it shows respect for their life circumstances. There's no reason why you should be 'wasting energy' by asking about the girl... it takes just about zero energy to ask \"hey, your friend is cute, is she single?\"\n\n2) The girl's friends have the girl's well-being in mind. There is basically no chance of them lying and saying \"she's single\" when she's not. You keep talking about getting 'wrong info,' so please see point 1 above. Just ask if she's single. The rest of the info, you get directly from her on the date.\n\n3) Again, I don't see why you are trying to see if you have relationship potential with a girl through someone else. I agree that the point of dating is to get to know someone and to see if you're compatible, and better yet, if there's potential for a loving future. None of this information should be gathered from a friend.\n\nYou seem young, as your examples of how it has gone bad were from some dumb Snapchat thing (...why?) and then doing it completely the wrong way, by asking 'several' of her classmates. It's extremely normal to have the respect to ask if someone is single before asking them out. I have asked tons of friends of girls if the girl was single, and it can only show confidence ASSUMING YOU ASK THE GIRL OUT QUICKLY. I agree that going around town making your crush known to other people is going to make you look like a floppy cock. Otherwise, I can't think of anything that is a risk when asking if a girl is single.\n\nAlso, people with dating experience don't have crushes on people they don't know. Once you date enough, you'll realize that thinking someone is cute/attractive doesn't equal having a crush on them. Ask a friend if she's single, and then confidently ask her out when you know she is. You got this brother!",
"date": "2024-01-19",
"id": "kinjil2",
"parent_id": "19ato86",
"score": 5,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
"body": "You have great points! I like your method: asking if the girl is single and checking with one person/a select few people if I can pursue the relationship, and then just carrying it on by asking the girl out from there.\n\nWhether a girl is single or dating another person can be gathered from a friend; relationship potential CANNOT be. I think the people in high school who gave me the bad information are in the minority and not representative of actual adult dating.\n\nAnd in my high school examples I admit I tried to gather the relationship potential *through* other people to *bypass* the part of actually asking her out. If I only try to crowdsource information and do NOT ask the girl out, it shows a lack of confidence and creates an uncomfortable situation.\n\nThank you brother! !delta",
"date": "2024-01-19",
"id": "kino3i9",
"parent_id": "kinjil2",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "DeltaBot",
"body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/billbar ([3∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/billbar)).\n\n^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
"date": "2024-01-19",
"id": "kino6pb",
"parent_id": "kino3i9",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
]
| [
[
{
"author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
"body": "Yesterday during my session with my therapist, she said it's okay to ask a woman's friend's about them if I'm interested in them. For example, if I ask if the person is single, they may say \"Yes, she is single, she might be interested\" or \"No, she has a boyfriend, sorry\", for example.\n\nHowever, I've been hesitant to do that and I like to treat crushes as a one-man, \"no one but yourself, trust no one\" job. This is for a few main reasons:\n\n1. I feel that it would be putting my energy into the wrong thing. People say that you should talk to the woman DIRECTLY when pursuing a relationship. This means gauging her potential interest through social cues, stating your intentions/asking her on a date, etc. I think telling other people you like a woman carries the risk of them passing the knowledge to your love interest *before* you can state your feelings directly, which can show a lack of confidence. It would block direct communication of your feelings and thereby reduce the chances of a *clearly communicated* romantic relationship. Why spend time and energy trying to learn about a woman and communicate your interests *through* another person when you could use the same time and energy to ask her out, get to know her better, and gauge her interest via social cues? Why do all sorts of crowdsourcing and gathering enough information to write a research paper over... a simple crush? Something that plenty of people have and can handle with ease?\n\n2. The woman's mutual friends aren't obligated to give me info about her. In fact, they may even give me the wrong info if they aren't comfortable giving me true information, which could screw me over in the long run. All of that could be avoided by cutting all the extra people out of the equation and talking to the woman directly.\n\n3. I feel that it entirely misses the point of dating. If you want to establish a relationship, people say, state your intentions and ask her out. The question is not: \"Is she single?\" \"Does she have a boyfriend?\" The question is: \"How can I communicate my intentions and seeing if this person likes me back?\" Do I want to find out if a woman is *single*, or if I have relationship potential with said woman?\n\nMy hesitation comes from poor experiences in grade school. Two that come to mind are:\n\n1. Senior year of HS. I liked a girl from band. Her friend posted on his Snapchat story responding to an anonymous comment. The comment asked \"Is [crush] single?\" to which he responded \"Yeah, go hit her up\". I commented on the post asking how I can do that. He didn't directly answer the question, and instead asked \"Did you ask that?\" The conversation didn't continue after that. A few weeks later, I heard the girl was dating the male friend in question. On his story, he responded to an anonymous comment asking \"Are you and [crush] dating?\" by confirming the statement.\n\n2. Also senior year of HS. I tried pursuing a relationship with a girl from my class, and I admit I was not in the right in this situation because I didn't take signals of her not being interested, mistook friendliness for romantic attraction, and became distressed over not getting what I wanted. I asked several of my classmates if she was single, to which I got several different answers. Most of them just didn't know, some of them said she was single but not looking for a romantic partner, some of them said she had a boyfriend, and even one of them said she was flirting with a guy but I could somehow \"overtake\" him if I tried hard enough. One day I asked the girl \"are you dating someone\", to which she said no but it was an uncomfortable no. I admit this was a big mistake on my part. I strongly believe some of them told her I liked her. One day I messaged her asking about going to the beach during spring break with some of our peers, to which she said she would not be able to since she would be traveling out of the country. One day I was with some of her friends during the lunch break. They told me they knew I had a crush on her, so they tried videocalling her on my phone (it didn't go through), then asked what I would do if she had COVID (this was in 2020 right before quarantine), then dared me to sing a song about her. One of them also told me she would actually not be traveling out of the country and therefore could bring her on the beach trip. A few days later, the girl blocked me on my socials and the beach trip didn't happen due to quarantine. I was shocked because I felt that \"I did everything I was supposed to do, and I still got blocked.\"\n\nMy trust in other people went down after that and since then I became scared of asking for advice about a specific person from my peers out of fear of being given the wrong information and fucked over as a result. \n\nHowever, I have begun making some effort to rebuild my trust with my peers in that sense. It was only recently in early 2023 that I opened up to a select few of my closest friends about a platonic obsession (squish) with a female friend, and after opening up to them I felt a million times better. Now I would like to further open myself up and feel more comfortable about telling my peers about romance.\n\nCMV",
"date": "2024-01-19",
"id": "19ato86",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: It's not okay to ask for advice about a potential love interest from another friend.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/19ato86/cmv_its_not_okay_to_ask_for_advice_about_a/"
},
{
"author": "GotAJeepNeedAJeep",
"body": "Nearly a thousand words and who knows how much in billable hours to dance around the simplest solution...\n\n\"Hey, \\[person that I'm interested in\\] I think you're great and would love to know if you're interested too. Can I take you on a date?\" followed by \"awesome, can't wait!\" or \"no worries, I totally understand.\"\n\nWhat on earth makes the situation more complicated than this in your mind?",
"date": "2024-01-19",
"id": "kincnza",
"parent_id": "19ato86",
"score": 6,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
"body": "This post isn't arguing against stating your intentions/asking a girl on a date. It's about my personal pushback against seeking advice from their friend on the specific situation, and generally *because* it's far easier and simpler to ask them on a date.",
"date": "2024-01-19",
"id": "kindtcm",
"parent_id": "kincnza",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
"body": "Yesterday during my session with my therapist, she said it's okay to ask a woman's friend's about them if I'm interested in them. For example, if I ask if the person is single, they may say \"Yes, she is single, she might be interested\" or \"No, she has a boyfriend, sorry\", for example.\n\nHowever, I've been hesitant to do that and I like to treat crushes as a one-man, \"no one but yourself, trust no one\" job. This is for a few main reasons:\n\n1. I feel that it would be putting my energy into the wrong thing. People say that you should talk to the woman DIRECTLY when pursuing a relationship. This means gauging her potential interest through social cues, stating your intentions/asking her on a date, etc. I think telling other people you like a woman carries the risk of them passing the knowledge to your love interest *before* you can state your feelings directly, which can show a lack of confidence. It would block direct communication of your feelings and thereby reduce the chances of a *clearly communicated* romantic relationship. Why spend time and energy trying to learn about a woman and communicate your interests *through* another person when you could use the same time and energy to ask her out, get to know her better, and gauge her interest via social cues? Why do all sorts of crowdsourcing and gathering enough information to write a research paper over... a simple crush? Something that plenty of people have and can handle with ease?\n\n2. The woman's mutual friends aren't obligated to give me info about her. In fact, they may even give me the wrong info if they aren't comfortable giving me true information, which could screw me over in the long run. All of that could be avoided by cutting all the extra people out of the equation and talking to the woman directly.\n\n3. I feel that it entirely misses the point of dating. If you want to establish a relationship, people say, state your intentions and ask her out. The question is not: \"Is she single?\" \"Does she have a boyfriend?\" The question is: \"How can I communicate my intentions and seeing if this person likes me back?\" Do I want to find out if a woman is *single*, or if I have relationship potential with said woman?\n\nMy hesitation comes from poor experiences in grade school. Two that come to mind are:\n\n1. Senior year of HS. I liked a girl from band. Her friend posted on his Snapchat story responding to an anonymous comment. The comment asked \"Is [crush] single?\" to which he responded \"Yeah, go hit her up\". I commented on the post asking how I can do that. He didn't directly answer the question, and instead asked \"Did you ask that?\" The conversation didn't continue after that. A few weeks later, I heard the girl was dating the male friend in question. On his story, he responded to an anonymous comment asking \"Are you and [crush] dating?\" by confirming the statement.\n\n2. Also senior year of HS. I tried pursuing a relationship with a girl from my class, and I admit I was not in the right in this situation because I didn't take signals of her not being interested, mistook friendliness for romantic attraction, and became distressed over not getting what I wanted. I asked several of my classmates if she was single, to which I got several different answers. Most of them just didn't know, some of them said she was single but not looking for a romantic partner, some of them said she had a boyfriend, and even one of them said she was flirting with a guy but I could somehow \"overtake\" him if I tried hard enough. One day I asked the girl \"are you dating someone\", to which she said no but it was an uncomfortable no. I admit this was a big mistake on my part. I strongly believe some of them told her I liked her. One day I messaged her asking about going to the beach during spring break with some of our peers, to which she said she would not be able to since she would be traveling out of the country. One day I was with some of her friends during the lunch break. They told me they knew I had a crush on her, so they tried videocalling her on my phone (it didn't go through), then asked what I would do if she had COVID (this was in 2020 right before quarantine), then dared me to sing a song about her. One of them also told me she would actually not be traveling out of the country and therefore could bring her on the beach trip. A few days later, the girl blocked me on my socials and the beach trip didn't happen due to quarantine. I was shocked because I felt that \"I did everything I was supposed to do, and I still got blocked.\"\n\nMy trust in other people went down after that and since then I became scared of asking for advice about a specific person from my peers out of fear of being given the wrong information and fucked over as a result. \n\nHowever, I have begun making some effort to rebuild my trust with my peers in that sense. It was only recently in early 2023 that I opened up to a select few of my closest friends about a platonic obsession (squish) with a female friend, and after opening up to them I felt a million times better. Now I would like to further open myself up and feel more comfortable about telling my peers about romance.\n\nCMV",
"date": "2024-01-19",
"id": "19ato86",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: It's not okay to ask for advice about a potential love interest from another friend.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/19ato86/cmv_its_not_okay_to_ask_for_advice_about_a/"
},
{
"author": "eggs-benedryl",
"body": "God I'm glad facebook only just started being used when I graduated.. yikes.\n\nMost adults don't give enough of a shit to sabotage you or even care one way or another. Are you in college where this gossipy cliquey behavior is still prevalent? \n\nIt also occurs to me that you should probably be talking about this with your therapist and not reddit, they exist to help you with these feelings.",
"date": "2024-01-19",
"id": "kiney69",
"parent_id": "19ato86",
"score": 7,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
"body": "Yesterday during my session with my therapist, she said it's okay to ask a woman's friend's about them if I'm interested in them. For example, if I ask if the person is single, they may say \"Yes, she is single, she might be interested\" or \"No, she has a boyfriend, sorry\", for example.\n\nHowever, I've been hesitant to do that and I like to treat crushes as a one-man, \"no one but yourself, trust no one\" job. This is for a few main reasons:\n\n1. I feel that it would be putting my energy into the wrong thing. People say that you should talk to the woman DIRECTLY when pursuing a relationship. This means gauging her potential interest through social cues, stating your intentions/asking her on a date, etc. I think telling other people you like a woman carries the risk of them passing the knowledge to your love interest *before* you can state your feelings directly, which can show a lack of confidence. It would block direct communication of your feelings and thereby reduce the chances of a *clearly communicated* romantic relationship. Why spend time and energy trying to learn about a woman and communicate your interests *through* another person when you could use the same time and energy to ask her out, get to know her better, and gauge her interest via social cues? Why do all sorts of crowdsourcing and gathering enough information to write a research paper over... a simple crush? Something that plenty of people have and can handle with ease?\n\n2. The woman's mutual friends aren't obligated to give me info about her. In fact, they may even give me the wrong info if they aren't comfortable giving me true information, which could screw me over in the long run. All of that could be avoided by cutting all the extra people out of the equation and talking to the woman directly.\n\n3. I feel that it entirely misses the point of dating. If you want to establish a relationship, people say, state your intentions and ask her out. The question is not: \"Is she single?\" \"Does she have a boyfriend?\" The question is: \"How can I communicate my intentions and seeing if this person likes me back?\" Do I want to find out if a woman is *single*, or if I have relationship potential with said woman?\n\nMy hesitation comes from poor experiences in grade school. Two that come to mind are:\n\n1. Senior year of HS. I liked a girl from band. Her friend posted on his Snapchat story responding to an anonymous comment. The comment asked \"Is [crush] single?\" to which he responded \"Yeah, go hit her up\". I commented on the post asking how I can do that. He didn't directly answer the question, and instead asked \"Did you ask that?\" The conversation didn't continue after that. A few weeks later, I heard the girl was dating the male friend in question. On his story, he responded to an anonymous comment asking \"Are you and [crush] dating?\" by confirming the statement.\n\n2. Also senior year of HS. I tried pursuing a relationship with a girl from my class, and I admit I was not in the right in this situation because I didn't take signals of her not being interested, mistook friendliness for romantic attraction, and became distressed over not getting what I wanted. I asked several of my classmates if she was single, to which I got several different answers. Most of them just didn't know, some of them said she was single but not looking for a romantic partner, some of them said she had a boyfriend, and even one of them said she was flirting with a guy but I could somehow \"overtake\" him if I tried hard enough. One day I asked the girl \"are you dating someone\", to which she said no but it was an uncomfortable no. I admit this was a big mistake on my part. I strongly believe some of them told her I liked her. One day I messaged her asking about going to the beach during spring break with some of our peers, to which she said she would not be able to since she would be traveling out of the country. One day I was with some of her friends during the lunch break. They told me they knew I had a crush on her, so they tried videocalling her on my phone (it didn't go through), then asked what I would do if she had COVID (this was in 2020 right before quarantine), then dared me to sing a song about her. One of them also told me she would actually not be traveling out of the country and therefore could bring her on the beach trip. A few days later, the girl blocked me on my socials and the beach trip didn't happen due to quarantine. I was shocked because I felt that \"I did everything I was supposed to do, and I still got blocked.\"\n\nMy trust in other people went down after that and since then I became scared of asking for advice about a specific person from my peers out of fear of being given the wrong information and fucked over as a result. \n\nHowever, I have begun making some effort to rebuild my trust with my peers in that sense. It was only recently in early 2023 that I opened up to a select few of my closest friends about a platonic obsession (squish) with a female friend, and after opening up to them I felt a million times better. Now I would like to further open myself up and feel more comfortable about telling my peers about romance.\n\nCMV",
"date": "2024-01-19",
"id": "19ato86",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: It's not okay to ask for advice about a potential love interest from another friend.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/19ato86/cmv_its_not_okay_to_ask_for_advice_about_a/"
},
{
"author": "RedCravat",
"body": "I would suggest taking a step back from your perspective, and try thinking about each person in this scenario in a way that genuinely cares about their well-being.\n\nI'm not a doctor or anything, its just a practice I do to help me pull myself out of these type of mental labyrinths of doubt",
"date": "2024-01-19",
"id": "kinfh5f",
"parent_id": "19ato86",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
"body": "Yesterday during my session with my therapist, she said it's okay to ask a woman's friend's about them if I'm interested in them. For example, if I ask if the person is single, they may say \"Yes, she is single, she might be interested\" or \"No, she has a boyfriend, sorry\", for example.\n\nHowever, I've been hesitant to do that and I like to treat crushes as a one-man, \"no one but yourself, trust no one\" job. This is for a few main reasons:\n\n1. I feel that it would be putting my energy into the wrong thing. People say that you should talk to the woman DIRECTLY when pursuing a relationship. This means gauging her potential interest through social cues, stating your intentions/asking her on a date, etc. I think telling other people you like a woman carries the risk of them passing the knowledge to your love interest *before* you can state your feelings directly, which can show a lack of confidence. It would block direct communication of your feelings and thereby reduce the chances of a *clearly communicated* romantic relationship. Why spend time and energy trying to learn about a woman and communicate your interests *through* another person when you could use the same time and energy to ask her out, get to know her better, and gauge her interest via social cues? Why do all sorts of crowdsourcing and gathering enough information to write a research paper over... a simple crush? Something that plenty of people have and can handle with ease?\n\n2. The woman's mutual friends aren't obligated to give me info about her. In fact, they may even give me the wrong info if they aren't comfortable giving me true information, which could screw me over in the long run. All of that could be avoided by cutting all the extra people out of the equation and talking to the woman directly.\n\n3. I feel that it entirely misses the point of dating. If you want to establish a relationship, people say, state your intentions and ask her out. The question is not: \"Is she single?\" \"Does she have a boyfriend?\" The question is: \"How can I communicate my intentions and seeing if this person likes me back?\" Do I want to find out if a woman is *single*, or if I have relationship potential with said woman?\n\nMy hesitation comes from poor experiences in grade school. Two that come to mind are:\n\n1. Senior year of HS. I liked a girl from band. Her friend posted on his Snapchat story responding to an anonymous comment. The comment asked \"Is [crush] single?\" to which he responded \"Yeah, go hit her up\". I commented on the post asking how I can do that. He didn't directly answer the question, and instead asked \"Did you ask that?\" The conversation didn't continue after that. A few weeks later, I heard the girl was dating the male friend in question. On his story, he responded to an anonymous comment asking \"Are you and [crush] dating?\" by confirming the statement.\n\n2. Also senior year of HS. I tried pursuing a relationship with a girl from my class, and I admit I was not in the right in this situation because I didn't take signals of her not being interested, mistook friendliness for romantic attraction, and became distressed over not getting what I wanted. I asked several of my classmates if she was single, to which I got several different answers. Most of them just didn't know, some of them said she was single but not looking for a romantic partner, some of them said she had a boyfriend, and even one of them said she was flirting with a guy but I could somehow \"overtake\" him if I tried hard enough. One day I asked the girl \"are you dating someone\", to which she said no but it was an uncomfortable no. I admit this was a big mistake on my part. I strongly believe some of them told her I liked her. One day I messaged her asking about going to the beach during spring break with some of our peers, to which she said she would not be able to since she would be traveling out of the country. One day I was with some of her friends during the lunch break. They told me they knew I had a crush on her, so they tried videocalling her on my phone (it didn't go through), then asked what I would do if she had COVID (this was in 2020 right before quarantine), then dared me to sing a song about her. One of them also told me she would actually not be traveling out of the country and therefore could bring her on the beach trip. A few days later, the girl blocked me on my socials and the beach trip didn't happen due to quarantine. I was shocked because I felt that \"I did everything I was supposed to do, and I still got blocked.\"\n\nMy trust in other people went down after that and since then I became scared of asking for advice about a specific person from my peers out of fear of being given the wrong information and fucked over as a result. \n\nHowever, I have begun making some effort to rebuild my trust with my peers in that sense. It was only recently in early 2023 that I opened up to a select few of my closest friends about a platonic obsession (squish) with a female friend, and after opening up to them I felt a million times better. Now I would like to further open myself up and feel more comfortable about telling my peers about romance.\n\nCMV",
"date": "2024-01-19",
"id": "19ato86",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: It's not okay to ask for advice about a potential love interest from another friend.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/19ato86/cmv_its_not_okay_to_ask_for_advice_about_a/"
},
{
"author": "Relative-One-4060",
"body": "The issue is in both of your situations.\n\nIn situation 1, you took Snapchat Q&A as a truthful and logical statement. Do you really think Snapchat is a reliable source for that information?\n\nIn situation 2, you went around asking multiple people, and then got dragged into weird high school drama.\n\nThose situations are not indicative of adult dating.\n\nIt is totally fine, in certain situations, to ask the friend of someone you are interested in if they are single or would even be open to considering a relationship with you or anyone. Nearly all adults would respond with decent information, or just say that they don't know, or that you should ask the person you're interested in directly.\n\nIts telling that the only examples you could use for this viewpoint are ones from High school, a place where people are not fully matured yet.\n\nI feel like its definitely okay to ask because its not breaking boundaries, and can help you avoid awkward situations or friend-breaking questions.\n\nYou saying that its \"not okay\" would imply that its somehow immoral or breaking some social etiquette.",
"date": "2024-01-19",
"id": "king30m",
"parent_id": "19ato86",
"score": 7,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
"body": "Yesterday during my session with my therapist, she said it's okay to ask a woman's friend's about them if I'm interested in them. For example, if I ask if the person is single, they may say \"Yes, she is single, she might be interested\" or \"No, she has a boyfriend, sorry\", for example.\n\nHowever, I've been hesitant to do that and I like to treat crushes as a one-man, \"no one but yourself, trust no one\" job. This is for a few main reasons:\n\n1. I feel that it would be putting my energy into the wrong thing. People say that you should talk to the woman DIRECTLY when pursuing a relationship. This means gauging her potential interest through social cues, stating your intentions/asking her on a date, etc. I think telling other people you like a woman carries the risk of them passing the knowledge to your love interest *before* you can state your feelings directly, which can show a lack of confidence. It would block direct communication of your feelings and thereby reduce the chances of a *clearly communicated* romantic relationship. Why spend time and energy trying to learn about a woman and communicate your interests *through* another person when you could use the same time and energy to ask her out, get to know her better, and gauge her interest via social cues? Why do all sorts of crowdsourcing and gathering enough information to write a research paper over... a simple crush? Something that plenty of people have and can handle with ease?\n\n2. The woman's mutual friends aren't obligated to give me info about her. In fact, they may even give me the wrong info if they aren't comfortable giving me true information, which could screw me over in the long run. All of that could be avoided by cutting all the extra people out of the equation and talking to the woman directly.\n\n3. I feel that it entirely misses the point of dating. If you want to establish a relationship, people say, state your intentions and ask her out. The question is not: \"Is she single?\" \"Does she have a boyfriend?\" The question is: \"How can I communicate my intentions and seeing if this person likes me back?\" Do I want to find out if a woman is *single*, or if I have relationship potential with said woman?\n\nMy hesitation comes from poor experiences in grade school. Two that come to mind are:\n\n1. Senior year of HS. I liked a girl from band. Her friend posted on his Snapchat story responding to an anonymous comment. The comment asked \"Is [crush] single?\" to which he responded \"Yeah, go hit her up\". I commented on the post asking how I can do that. He didn't directly answer the question, and instead asked \"Did you ask that?\" The conversation didn't continue after that. A few weeks later, I heard the girl was dating the male friend in question. On his story, he responded to an anonymous comment asking \"Are you and [crush] dating?\" by confirming the statement.\n\n2. Also senior year of HS. I tried pursuing a relationship with a girl from my class, and I admit I was not in the right in this situation because I didn't take signals of her not being interested, mistook friendliness for romantic attraction, and became distressed over not getting what I wanted. I asked several of my classmates if she was single, to which I got several different answers. Most of them just didn't know, some of them said she was single but not looking for a romantic partner, some of them said she had a boyfriend, and even one of them said she was flirting with a guy but I could somehow \"overtake\" him if I tried hard enough. One day I asked the girl \"are you dating someone\", to which she said no but it was an uncomfortable no. I admit this was a big mistake on my part. I strongly believe some of them told her I liked her. One day I messaged her asking about going to the beach during spring break with some of our peers, to which she said she would not be able to since she would be traveling out of the country. One day I was with some of her friends during the lunch break. They told me they knew I had a crush on her, so they tried videocalling her on my phone (it didn't go through), then asked what I would do if she had COVID (this was in 2020 right before quarantine), then dared me to sing a song about her. One of them also told me she would actually not be traveling out of the country and therefore could bring her on the beach trip. A few days later, the girl blocked me on my socials and the beach trip didn't happen due to quarantine. I was shocked because I felt that \"I did everything I was supposed to do, and I still got blocked.\"\n\nMy trust in other people went down after that and since then I became scared of asking for advice about a specific person from my peers out of fear of being given the wrong information and fucked over as a result. \n\nHowever, I have begun making some effort to rebuild my trust with my peers in that sense. It was only recently in early 2023 that I opened up to a select few of my closest friends about a platonic obsession (squish) with a female friend, and after opening up to them I felt a million times better. Now I would like to further open myself up and feel more comfortable about telling my peers about romance.\n\nCMV",
"date": "2024-01-19",
"id": "19ato86",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: It's not okay to ask for advice about a potential love interest from another friend.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/19ato86/cmv_its_not_okay_to_ask_for_advice_about_a/"
},
{
"author": "Lylieth",
"body": "Your personal experiences does not establish this to be true for everyone. It can far easier to ask a close friend of who you like; if you are not comfortable asking who you like directly.\n\n1. I don't understand the energy bit; unless you are saying you should just ask them. But, then why are we here? IMO it also has zero to do with communicating through someone in this aspect. The intention is to obtain answers\\info ***before*** going directly to them, no? I mean, that is what I take from the title and proposition from you therapist.\n2. And? If you feel this why, why go through their friend? This isn't an always thing. It's just as possible you already know said person and have established trust, no? I don't understand the automatic assumption of a negative.\n3. You don't really follow through on this point, at least that I have taken away. Dating is to find out if you are good together more than just acquaintances\\friends. This can still be done by asking info about them first from their close friend, no? Why or why not?",
"date": "2024-01-19",
"id": "king6gx",
"parent_id": "19ato86",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
"body": "Yesterday during my session with my therapist, she said it's okay to ask a woman's friend's about them if I'm interested in them. For example, if I ask if the person is single, they may say \"Yes, she is single, she might be interested\" or \"No, she has a boyfriend, sorry\", for example.\n\nHowever, I've been hesitant to do that and I like to treat crushes as a one-man, \"no one but yourself, trust no one\" job. This is for a few main reasons:\n\n1. I feel that it would be putting my energy into the wrong thing. People say that you should talk to the woman DIRECTLY when pursuing a relationship. This means gauging her potential interest through social cues, stating your intentions/asking her on a date, etc. I think telling other people you like a woman carries the risk of them passing the knowledge to your love interest *before* you can state your feelings directly, which can show a lack of confidence. It would block direct communication of your feelings and thereby reduce the chances of a *clearly communicated* romantic relationship. Why spend time and energy trying to learn about a woman and communicate your interests *through* another person when you could use the same time and energy to ask her out, get to know her better, and gauge her interest via social cues? Why do all sorts of crowdsourcing and gathering enough information to write a research paper over... a simple crush? Something that plenty of people have and can handle with ease?\n\n2. The woman's mutual friends aren't obligated to give me info about her. In fact, they may even give me the wrong info if they aren't comfortable giving me true information, which could screw me over in the long run. All of that could be avoided by cutting all the extra people out of the equation and talking to the woman directly.\n\n3. I feel that it entirely misses the point of dating. If you want to establish a relationship, people say, state your intentions and ask her out. The question is not: \"Is she single?\" \"Does she have a boyfriend?\" The question is: \"How can I communicate my intentions and seeing if this person likes me back?\" Do I want to find out if a woman is *single*, or if I have relationship potential with said woman?\n\nMy hesitation comes from poor experiences in grade school. Two that come to mind are:\n\n1. Senior year of HS. I liked a girl from band. Her friend posted on his Snapchat story responding to an anonymous comment. The comment asked \"Is [crush] single?\" to which he responded \"Yeah, go hit her up\". I commented on the post asking how I can do that. He didn't directly answer the question, and instead asked \"Did you ask that?\" The conversation didn't continue after that. A few weeks later, I heard the girl was dating the male friend in question. On his story, he responded to an anonymous comment asking \"Are you and [crush] dating?\" by confirming the statement.\n\n2. Also senior year of HS. I tried pursuing a relationship with a girl from my class, and I admit I was not in the right in this situation because I didn't take signals of her not being interested, mistook friendliness for romantic attraction, and became distressed over not getting what I wanted. I asked several of my classmates if she was single, to which I got several different answers. Most of them just didn't know, some of them said she was single but not looking for a romantic partner, some of them said she had a boyfriend, and even one of them said she was flirting with a guy but I could somehow \"overtake\" him if I tried hard enough. One day I asked the girl \"are you dating someone\", to which she said no but it was an uncomfortable no. I admit this was a big mistake on my part. I strongly believe some of them told her I liked her. One day I messaged her asking about going to the beach during spring break with some of our peers, to which she said she would not be able to since she would be traveling out of the country. One day I was with some of her friends during the lunch break. They told me they knew I had a crush on her, so they tried videocalling her on my phone (it didn't go through), then asked what I would do if she had COVID (this was in 2020 right before quarantine), then dared me to sing a song about her. One of them also told me she would actually not be traveling out of the country and therefore could bring her on the beach trip. A few days later, the girl blocked me on my socials and the beach trip didn't happen due to quarantine. I was shocked because I felt that \"I did everything I was supposed to do, and I still got blocked.\"\n\nMy trust in other people went down after that and since then I became scared of asking for advice about a specific person from my peers out of fear of being given the wrong information and fucked over as a result. \n\nHowever, I have begun making some effort to rebuild my trust with my peers in that sense. It was only recently in early 2023 that I opened up to a select few of my closest friends about a platonic obsession (squish) with a female friend, and after opening up to them I felt a million times better. Now I would like to further open myself up and feel more comfortable about telling my peers about romance.\n\nCMV",
"date": "2024-01-19",
"id": "19ato86",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: It's not okay to ask for advice about a potential love interest from another friend.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/19ato86/cmv_its_not_okay_to_ask_for_advice_about_a/"
},
{
"author": "guile_theme",
"body": "Do not ask anyone out until you have a better grasp on what other people are.",
"date": "2024-01-19",
"id": "kingvfr",
"parent_id": "19ato86",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
"body": "Yesterday during my session with my therapist, she said it's okay to ask a woman's friend's about them if I'm interested in them. For example, if I ask if the person is single, they may say \"Yes, she is single, she might be interested\" or \"No, she has a boyfriend, sorry\", for example.\n\nHowever, I've been hesitant to do that and I like to treat crushes as a one-man, \"no one but yourself, trust no one\" job. This is for a few main reasons:\n\n1. I feel that it would be putting my energy into the wrong thing. People say that you should talk to the woman DIRECTLY when pursuing a relationship. This means gauging her potential interest through social cues, stating your intentions/asking her on a date, etc. I think telling other people you like a woman carries the risk of them passing the knowledge to your love interest *before* you can state your feelings directly, which can show a lack of confidence. It would block direct communication of your feelings and thereby reduce the chances of a *clearly communicated* romantic relationship. Why spend time and energy trying to learn about a woman and communicate your interests *through* another person when you could use the same time and energy to ask her out, get to know her better, and gauge her interest via social cues? Why do all sorts of crowdsourcing and gathering enough information to write a research paper over... a simple crush? Something that plenty of people have and can handle with ease?\n\n2. The woman's mutual friends aren't obligated to give me info about her. In fact, they may even give me the wrong info if they aren't comfortable giving me true information, which could screw me over in the long run. All of that could be avoided by cutting all the extra people out of the equation and talking to the woman directly.\n\n3. I feel that it entirely misses the point of dating. If you want to establish a relationship, people say, state your intentions and ask her out. The question is not: \"Is she single?\" \"Does she have a boyfriend?\" The question is: \"How can I communicate my intentions and seeing if this person likes me back?\" Do I want to find out if a woman is *single*, or if I have relationship potential with said woman?\n\nMy hesitation comes from poor experiences in grade school. Two that come to mind are:\n\n1. Senior year of HS. I liked a girl from band. Her friend posted on his Snapchat story responding to an anonymous comment. The comment asked \"Is [crush] single?\" to which he responded \"Yeah, go hit her up\". I commented on the post asking how I can do that. He didn't directly answer the question, and instead asked \"Did you ask that?\" The conversation didn't continue after that. A few weeks later, I heard the girl was dating the male friend in question. On his story, he responded to an anonymous comment asking \"Are you and [crush] dating?\" by confirming the statement.\n\n2. Also senior year of HS. I tried pursuing a relationship with a girl from my class, and I admit I was not in the right in this situation because I didn't take signals of her not being interested, mistook friendliness for romantic attraction, and became distressed over not getting what I wanted. I asked several of my classmates if she was single, to which I got several different answers. Most of them just didn't know, some of them said she was single but not looking for a romantic partner, some of them said she had a boyfriend, and even one of them said she was flirting with a guy but I could somehow \"overtake\" him if I tried hard enough. One day I asked the girl \"are you dating someone\", to which she said no but it was an uncomfortable no. I admit this was a big mistake on my part. I strongly believe some of them told her I liked her. One day I messaged her asking about going to the beach during spring break with some of our peers, to which she said she would not be able to since she would be traveling out of the country. One day I was with some of her friends during the lunch break. They told me they knew I had a crush on her, so they tried videocalling her on my phone (it didn't go through), then asked what I would do if she had COVID (this was in 2020 right before quarantine), then dared me to sing a song about her. One of them also told me she would actually not be traveling out of the country and therefore could bring her on the beach trip. A few days later, the girl blocked me on my socials and the beach trip didn't happen due to quarantine. I was shocked because I felt that \"I did everything I was supposed to do, and I still got blocked.\"\n\nMy trust in other people went down after that and since then I became scared of asking for advice about a specific person from my peers out of fear of being given the wrong information and fucked over as a result. \n\nHowever, I have begun making some effort to rebuild my trust with my peers in that sense. It was only recently in early 2023 that I opened up to a select few of my closest friends about a platonic obsession (squish) with a female friend, and after opening up to them I felt a million times better. Now I would like to further open myself up and feel more comfortable about telling my peers about romance.\n\nCMV",
"date": "2024-01-19",
"id": "19ato86",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: It's not okay to ask for advice about a potential love interest from another friend.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/19ato86/cmv_its_not_okay_to_ask_for_advice_about_a/"
},
{
"author": "listenyall",
"body": "Of course it's ok. Before the internet, this is how relationships happened--you met a friend of a friend somewhere, you say to your mutual friend \"hey I really liked meeting X on Saturday, do you know if she's single? Do you think we'd get along?\" and then if the answer is yes you ask the person out. \n\n\nIt is of course not a replacement for talking to someone directly, but can be a very useful first step, especially in situations where you know the friend of the person you are interested in well but don't know them well at all.",
"date": "2024-01-19",
"id": "kini587",
"parent_id": "19ato86",
"score": 5,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
"body": "Yesterday during my session with my therapist, she said it's okay to ask a woman's friend's about them if I'm interested in them. For example, if I ask if the person is single, they may say \"Yes, she is single, she might be interested\" or \"No, she has a boyfriend, sorry\", for example.\n\nHowever, I've been hesitant to do that and I like to treat crushes as a one-man, \"no one but yourself, trust no one\" job. This is for a few main reasons:\n\n1. I feel that it would be putting my energy into the wrong thing. People say that you should talk to the woman DIRECTLY when pursuing a relationship. This means gauging her potential interest through social cues, stating your intentions/asking her on a date, etc. I think telling other people you like a woman carries the risk of them passing the knowledge to your love interest *before* you can state your feelings directly, which can show a lack of confidence. It would block direct communication of your feelings and thereby reduce the chances of a *clearly communicated* romantic relationship. Why spend time and energy trying to learn about a woman and communicate your interests *through* another person when you could use the same time and energy to ask her out, get to know her better, and gauge her interest via social cues? Why do all sorts of crowdsourcing and gathering enough information to write a research paper over... a simple crush? Something that plenty of people have and can handle with ease?\n\n2. The woman's mutual friends aren't obligated to give me info about her. In fact, they may even give me the wrong info if they aren't comfortable giving me true information, which could screw me over in the long run. All of that could be avoided by cutting all the extra people out of the equation and talking to the woman directly.\n\n3. I feel that it entirely misses the point of dating. If you want to establish a relationship, people say, state your intentions and ask her out. The question is not: \"Is she single?\" \"Does she have a boyfriend?\" The question is: \"How can I communicate my intentions and seeing if this person likes me back?\" Do I want to find out if a woman is *single*, or if I have relationship potential with said woman?\n\nMy hesitation comes from poor experiences in grade school. Two that come to mind are:\n\n1. Senior year of HS. I liked a girl from band. Her friend posted on his Snapchat story responding to an anonymous comment. The comment asked \"Is [crush] single?\" to which he responded \"Yeah, go hit her up\". I commented on the post asking how I can do that. He didn't directly answer the question, and instead asked \"Did you ask that?\" The conversation didn't continue after that. A few weeks later, I heard the girl was dating the male friend in question. On his story, he responded to an anonymous comment asking \"Are you and [crush] dating?\" by confirming the statement.\n\n2. Also senior year of HS. I tried pursuing a relationship with a girl from my class, and I admit I was not in the right in this situation because I didn't take signals of her not being interested, mistook friendliness for romantic attraction, and became distressed over not getting what I wanted. I asked several of my classmates if she was single, to which I got several different answers. Most of them just didn't know, some of them said she was single but not looking for a romantic partner, some of them said she had a boyfriend, and even one of them said she was flirting with a guy but I could somehow \"overtake\" him if I tried hard enough. One day I asked the girl \"are you dating someone\", to which she said no but it was an uncomfortable no. I admit this was a big mistake on my part. I strongly believe some of them told her I liked her. One day I messaged her asking about going to the beach during spring break with some of our peers, to which she said she would not be able to since she would be traveling out of the country. One day I was with some of her friends during the lunch break. They told me they knew I had a crush on her, so they tried videocalling her on my phone (it didn't go through), then asked what I would do if she had COVID (this was in 2020 right before quarantine), then dared me to sing a song about her. One of them also told me she would actually not be traveling out of the country and therefore could bring her on the beach trip. A few days later, the girl blocked me on my socials and the beach trip didn't happen due to quarantine. I was shocked because I felt that \"I did everything I was supposed to do, and I still got blocked.\"\n\nMy trust in other people went down after that and since then I became scared of asking for advice about a specific person from my peers out of fear of being given the wrong information and fucked over as a result. \n\nHowever, I have begun making some effort to rebuild my trust with my peers in that sense. It was only recently in early 2023 that I opened up to a select few of my closest friends about a platonic obsession (squish) with a female friend, and after opening up to them I felt a million times better. Now I would like to further open myself up and feel more comfortable about telling my peers about romance.\n\nCMV",
"date": "2024-01-19",
"id": "19ato86",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: It's not okay to ask for advice about a potential love interest from another friend.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/19ato86/cmv_its_not_okay_to_ask_for_advice_about_a/"
},
{
"author": "Grandemestizo",
"body": "Buddy, you need to relax. Take a deep breath and get out of the war room. This isn't a puzzle to be solved or a science to research. If you're interested in a person, casually get to know them. If a woman sees that you're planning and strategizing and gathering intel on her, she's gonna think you're some kind of weirdo.",
"date": "2024-01-19",
"id": "kinqpky",
"parent_id": "19ato86",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
"body": "Yesterday during my session with my therapist, she said it's okay to ask a woman's friend's about them if I'm interested in them. For example, if I ask if the person is single, they may say \"Yes, she is single, she might be interested\" or \"No, she has a boyfriend, sorry\", for example.\n\nHowever, I've been hesitant to do that and I like to treat crushes as a one-man, \"no one but yourself, trust no one\" job. This is for a few main reasons:\n\n1. I feel that it would be putting my energy into the wrong thing. People say that you should talk to the woman DIRECTLY when pursuing a relationship. This means gauging her potential interest through social cues, stating your intentions/asking her on a date, etc. I think telling other people you like a woman carries the risk of them passing the knowledge to your love interest *before* you can state your feelings directly, which can show a lack of confidence. It would block direct communication of your feelings and thereby reduce the chances of a *clearly communicated* romantic relationship. Why spend time and energy trying to learn about a woman and communicate your interests *through* another person when you could use the same time and energy to ask her out, get to know her better, and gauge her interest via social cues? Why do all sorts of crowdsourcing and gathering enough information to write a research paper over... a simple crush? Something that plenty of people have and can handle with ease?\n\n2. The woman's mutual friends aren't obligated to give me info about her. In fact, they may even give me the wrong info if they aren't comfortable giving me true information, which could screw me over in the long run. All of that could be avoided by cutting all the extra people out of the equation and talking to the woman directly.\n\n3. I feel that it entirely misses the point of dating. If you want to establish a relationship, people say, state your intentions and ask her out. The question is not: \"Is she single?\" \"Does she have a boyfriend?\" The question is: \"How can I communicate my intentions and seeing if this person likes me back?\" Do I want to find out if a woman is *single*, or if I have relationship potential with said woman?\n\nMy hesitation comes from poor experiences in grade school. Two that come to mind are:\n\n1. Senior year of HS. I liked a girl from band. Her friend posted on his Snapchat story responding to an anonymous comment. The comment asked \"Is [crush] single?\" to which he responded \"Yeah, go hit her up\". I commented on the post asking how I can do that. He didn't directly answer the question, and instead asked \"Did you ask that?\" The conversation didn't continue after that. A few weeks later, I heard the girl was dating the male friend in question. On his story, he responded to an anonymous comment asking \"Are you and [crush] dating?\" by confirming the statement.\n\n2. Also senior year of HS. I tried pursuing a relationship with a girl from my class, and I admit I was not in the right in this situation because I didn't take signals of her not being interested, mistook friendliness for romantic attraction, and became distressed over not getting what I wanted. I asked several of my classmates if she was single, to which I got several different answers. Most of them just didn't know, some of them said she was single but not looking for a romantic partner, some of them said she had a boyfriend, and even one of them said she was flirting with a guy but I could somehow \"overtake\" him if I tried hard enough. One day I asked the girl \"are you dating someone\", to which she said no but it was an uncomfortable no. I admit this was a big mistake on my part. I strongly believe some of them told her I liked her. One day I messaged her asking about going to the beach during spring break with some of our peers, to which she said she would not be able to since she would be traveling out of the country. One day I was with some of her friends during the lunch break. They told me they knew I had a crush on her, so they tried videocalling her on my phone (it didn't go through), then asked what I would do if she had COVID (this was in 2020 right before quarantine), then dared me to sing a song about her. One of them also told me she would actually not be traveling out of the country and therefore could bring her on the beach trip. A few days later, the girl blocked me on my socials and the beach trip didn't happen due to quarantine. I was shocked because I felt that \"I did everything I was supposed to do, and I still got blocked.\"\n\nMy trust in other people went down after that and since then I became scared of asking for advice about a specific person from my peers out of fear of being given the wrong information and fucked over as a result. \n\nHowever, I have begun making some effort to rebuild my trust with my peers in that sense. It was only recently in early 2023 that I opened up to a select few of my closest friends about a platonic obsession (squish) with a female friend, and after opening up to them I felt a million times better. Now I would like to further open myself up and feel more comfortable about telling my peers about romance.\n\nCMV",
"date": "2024-01-19",
"id": "19ato86",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: It's not okay to ask for advice about a potential love interest from another friend.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/19ato86/cmv_its_not_okay_to_ask_for_advice_about_a/"
},
{
"author": "AstronomerParticular",
"body": "I think you are kinda missing the point. \n\nYou should not ask 10 people if someone is single and how to approach them. This is just creepy.\n\nJust ask one of their friend \"Hey is ... single.\" If they say yes then you can try flirting with them. If they say no just move on.\n\nThe problem with flirting directly is that it can be very unconfortable for people who are in a relationship. \n\nAlso it does not really matter if the friend tells them that you asked. When they suddenly start avoiding you then you already did not have a chance form the start.",
"date": "2024-01-19",
"id": "kinqqfy",
"parent_id": "19ato86",
"score": 4,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
"body": "Yesterday during my session with my therapist, she said it's okay to ask a woman's friend's about them if I'm interested in them. For example, if I ask if the person is single, they may say \"Yes, she is single, she might be interested\" or \"No, she has a boyfriend, sorry\", for example.\n\nHowever, I've been hesitant to do that and I like to treat crushes as a one-man, \"no one but yourself, trust no one\" job. This is for a few main reasons:\n\n1. I feel that it would be putting my energy into the wrong thing. People say that you should talk to the woman DIRECTLY when pursuing a relationship. This means gauging her potential interest through social cues, stating your intentions/asking her on a date, etc. I think telling other people you like a woman carries the risk of them passing the knowledge to your love interest *before* you can state your feelings directly, which can show a lack of confidence. It would block direct communication of your feelings and thereby reduce the chances of a *clearly communicated* romantic relationship. Why spend time and energy trying to learn about a woman and communicate your interests *through* another person when you could use the same time and energy to ask her out, get to know her better, and gauge her interest via social cues? Why do all sorts of crowdsourcing and gathering enough information to write a research paper over... a simple crush? Something that plenty of people have and can handle with ease?\n\n2. The woman's mutual friends aren't obligated to give me info about her. In fact, they may even give me the wrong info if they aren't comfortable giving me true information, which could screw me over in the long run. All of that could be avoided by cutting all the extra people out of the equation and talking to the woman directly.\n\n3. I feel that it entirely misses the point of dating. If you want to establish a relationship, people say, state your intentions and ask her out. The question is not: \"Is she single?\" \"Does she have a boyfriend?\" The question is: \"How can I communicate my intentions and seeing if this person likes me back?\" Do I want to find out if a woman is *single*, or if I have relationship potential with said woman?\n\nMy hesitation comes from poor experiences in grade school. Two that come to mind are:\n\n1. Senior year of HS. I liked a girl from band. Her friend posted on his Snapchat story responding to an anonymous comment. The comment asked \"Is [crush] single?\" to which he responded \"Yeah, go hit her up\". I commented on the post asking how I can do that. He didn't directly answer the question, and instead asked \"Did you ask that?\" The conversation didn't continue after that. A few weeks later, I heard the girl was dating the male friend in question. On his story, he responded to an anonymous comment asking \"Are you and [crush] dating?\" by confirming the statement.\n\n2. Also senior year of HS. I tried pursuing a relationship with a girl from my class, and I admit I was not in the right in this situation because I didn't take signals of her not being interested, mistook friendliness for romantic attraction, and became distressed over not getting what I wanted. I asked several of my classmates if she was single, to which I got several different answers. Most of them just didn't know, some of them said she was single but not looking for a romantic partner, some of them said she had a boyfriend, and even one of them said she was flirting with a guy but I could somehow \"overtake\" him if I tried hard enough. One day I asked the girl \"are you dating someone\", to which she said no but it was an uncomfortable no. I admit this was a big mistake on my part. I strongly believe some of them told her I liked her. One day I messaged her asking about going to the beach during spring break with some of our peers, to which she said she would not be able to since she would be traveling out of the country. One day I was with some of her friends during the lunch break. They told me they knew I had a crush on her, so they tried videocalling her on my phone (it didn't go through), then asked what I would do if she had COVID (this was in 2020 right before quarantine), then dared me to sing a song about her. One of them also told me she would actually not be traveling out of the country and therefore could bring her on the beach trip. A few days later, the girl blocked me on my socials and the beach trip didn't happen due to quarantine. I was shocked because I felt that \"I did everything I was supposed to do, and I still got blocked.\"\n\nMy trust in other people went down after that and since then I became scared of asking for advice about a specific person from my peers out of fear of being given the wrong information and fucked over as a result. \n\nHowever, I have begun making some effort to rebuild my trust with my peers in that sense. It was only recently in early 2023 that I opened up to a select few of my closest friends about a platonic obsession (squish) with a female friend, and after opening up to them I felt a million times better. Now I would like to further open myself up and feel more comfortable about telling my peers about romance.\n\nCMV",
"date": "2024-01-19",
"id": "19ato86",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: It's not okay to ask for advice about a potential love interest from another friend.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/19ato86/cmv_its_not_okay_to_ask_for_advice_about_a/"
},
{
"author": "SaberTruth2",
"body": "You’re an adult now, do not base your decisions on something that happened in HS. It’s not perfect in every situation, but it’s a very good idea in many. A lot depends on your relationship/familiarity with her and the friend. Every case is different and I’m sure it makes for a better story to go it alone, but any good friend is not only gonna tell you if it’s a good idea, but potentially help you woo her.",
"date": "2024-01-19",
"id": "kioeasc",
"parent_id": "19ato86",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
"body": "Yesterday during my session with my therapist, she said it's okay to ask a woman's friend's about them if I'm interested in them. For example, if I ask if the person is single, they may say \"Yes, she is single, she might be interested\" or \"No, she has a boyfriend, sorry\", for example.\n\nHowever, I've been hesitant to do that and I like to treat crushes as a one-man, \"no one but yourself, trust no one\" job. This is for a few main reasons:\n\n1. I feel that it would be putting my energy into the wrong thing. People say that you should talk to the woman DIRECTLY when pursuing a relationship. This means gauging her potential interest through social cues, stating your intentions/asking her on a date, etc. I think telling other people you like a woman carries the risk of them passing the knowledge to your love interest *before* you can state your feelings directly, which can show a lack of confidence. It would block direct communication of your feelings and thereby reduce the chances of a *clearly communicated* romantic relationship. Why spend time and energy trying to learn about a woman and communicate your interests *through* another person when you could use the same time and energy to ask her out, get to know her better, and gauge her interest via social cues? Why do all sorts of crowdsourcing and gathering enough information to write a research paper over... a simple crush? Something that plenty of people have and can handle with ease?\n\n2. The woman's mutual friends aren't obligated to give me info about her. In fact, they may even give me the wrong info if they aren't comfortable giving me true information, which could screw me over in the long run. All of that could be avoided by cutting all the extra people out of the equation and talking to the woman directly.\n\n3. I feel that it entirely misses the point of dating. If you want to establish a relationship, people say, state your intentions and ask her out. The question is not: \"Is she single?\" \"Does she have a boyfriend?\" The question is: \"How can I communicate my intentions and seeing if this person likes me back?\" Do I want to find out if a woman is *single*, or if I have relationship potential with said woman?\n\nMy hesitation comes from poor experiences in grade school. Two that come to mind are:\n\n1. Senior year of HS. I liked a girl from band. Her friend posted on his Snapchat story responding to an anonymous comment. The comment asked \"Is [crush] single?\" to which he responded \"Yeah, go hit her up\". I commented on the post asking how I can do that. He didn't directly answer the question, and instead asked \"Did you ask that?\" The conversation didn't continue after that. A few weeks later, I heard the girl was dating the male friend in question. On his story, he responded to an anonymous comment asking \"Are you and [crush] dating?\" by confirming the statement.\n\n2. Also senior year of HS. I tried pursuing a relationship with a girl from my class, and I admit I was not in the right in this situation because I didn't take signals of her not being interested, mistook friendliness for romantic attraction, and became distressed over not getting what I wanted. I asked several of my classmates if she was single, to which I got several different answers. Most of them just didn't know, some of them said she was single but not looking for a romantic partner, some of them said she had a boyfriend, and even one of them said she was flirting with a guy but I could somehow \"overtake\" him if I tried hard enough. One day I asked the girl \"are you dating someone\", to which she said no but it was an uncomfortable no. I admit this was a big mistake on my part. I strongly believe some of them told her I liked her. One day I messaged her asking about going to the beach during spring break with some of our peers, to which she said she would not be able to since she would be traveling out of the country. One day I was with some of her friends during the lunch break. They told me they knew I had a crush on her, so they tried videocalling her on my phone (it didn't go through), then asked what I would do if she had COVID (this was in 2020 right before quarantine), then dared me to sing a song about her. One of them also told me she would actually not be traveling out of the country and therefore could bring her on the beach trip. A few days later, the girl blocked me on my socials and the beach trip didn't happen due to quarantine. I was shocked because I felt that \"I did everything I was supposed to do, and I still got blocked.\"\n\nMy trust in other people went down after that and since then I became scared of asking for advice about a specific person from my peers out of fear of being given the wrong information and fucked over as a result. \n\nHowever, I have begun making some effort to rebuild my trust with my peers in that sense. It was only recently in early 2023 that I opened up to a select few of my closest friends about a platonic obsession (squish) with a female friend, and after opening up to them I felt a million times better. Now I would like to further open myself up and feel more comfortable about telling my peers about romance.\n\nCMV",
"date": "2024-01-19",
"id": "19ato86",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: It's not okay to ask for advice about a potential love interest from another friend.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/19ato86/cmv_its_not_okay_to_ask_for_advice_about_a/"
},
{
"author": "Isogash",
"body": "There's a common problem in younger people who don't have much relationship experience where they think of dating like a difficult videogame level. When they do something and it leads to perceived \"failure\" they tend to believe that they made a mistake or went wrong somewhere; that there was some path to success and it got fucked along the way. There's then a tendency to try and compensate for or control their dating behaviour to avoid repeating the same perceived mistakes.\n\nThe reality is quite starkly different: there is no script for success. The *only* thing that matters in dating is whether or not the other person is also interested in you, and you have no control over this, practically speaking. In fact, if someone is *really* interested in you too, everything could go more or less completely wrong and you'd still end up together (assuming the practicality of it actually works.) If someone needs you to jump through a bunch of specific hoops in order for them to be interested, that should actually be raising some red flags: it means there is a lack of genuine interest. They would drop those hoops for someone they were really interested in.\n\nIn answer to your original question with this established, asking about someone's relationship status is a totally normal thing adults do all the time. It's less awkward for most people than asking directly and the mutual friend to warn you if you are risk of offending them (even though being romantically interested is not a problem itself, some people get freaked out by it because they themselves have problems.) After all your intention is only to figure out whether or not there is potential for *mutual* interest in a healthy relationship here. It's still just a first step, the next being to talk to the person directly and see if they are receptive.\n\nSo, you never really got fucked over. It was clearly a no go from the start and the friends you asked gave you conflicting answers probably because not all of them know her as well as each other. The ones who said she wasn't interested were probably right, and there's nothing you could have done about it. It's not a reflection of anything wrong with you. For all you know, she could be exclusively attracted to clowns and just hasn't told anyone. It's totally up to her to be interested or not for any reason she likes.\n\nOf course, I am not at all saying that how you behave and the choices you make won't affect people's overall impression of you, nor that learning how to be more confident, mature and graceful in general isn't going to significantly raise the likelihood of people becoming romantically interested in you, and your repuation in general too (people talk!) However, these are big *long term* changes in behaviour that will come with more life experience, they aren't things you will be able to learn overnight (but don't let that stop you from practicing!)\n\nTrust that investing time into building your character will be the best thing in better preparing you for success in your future relationships, and that looking for **genuine** ***mutual*** **interest** is the de factor recipe for success when dating. Be yourself and stop trying to follow a script and remember that a crush or date not working out is *not* failure, it is success.",
"date": "2024-01-20",
"id": "kipd4qz",
"parent_id": "19ato86",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
"body": "Yesterday during my session with my therapist, she said it's okay to ask a woman's friend's about them if I'm interested in them. For example, if I ask if the person is single, they may say \"Yes, she is single, she might be interested\" or \"No, she has a boyfriend, sorry\", for example.\n\nHowever, I've been hesitant to do that and I like to treat crushes as a one-man, \"no one but yourself, trust no one\" job. This is for a few main reasons:\n\n1. I feel that it would be putting my energy into the wrong thing. People say that you should talk to the woman DIRECTLY when pursuing a relationship. This means gauging her potential interest through social cues, stating your intentions/asking her on a date, etc. I think telling other people you like a woman carries the risk of them passing the knowledge to your love interest *before* you can state your feelings directly, which can show a lack of confidence. It would block direct communication of your feelings and thereby reduce the chances of a *clearly communicated* romantic relationship. Why spend time and energy trying to learn about a woman and communicate your interests *through* another person when you could use the same time and energy to ask her out, get to know her better, and gauge her interest via social cues? Why do all sorts of crowdsourcing and gathering enough information to write a research paper over... a simple crush? Something that plenty of people have and can handle with ease?\n\n2. The woman's mutual friends aren't obligated to give me info about her. In fact, they may even give me the wrong info if they aren't comfortable giving me true information, which could screw me over in the long run. All of that could be avoided by cutting all the extra people out of the equation and talking to the woman directly.\n\n3. I feel that it entirely misses the point of dating. If you want to establish a relationship, people say, state your intentions and ask her out. The question is not: \"Is she single?\" \"Does she have a boyfriend?\" The question is: \"How can I communicate my intentions and seeing if this person likes me back?\" Do I want to find out if a woman is *single*, or if I have relationship potential with said woman?\n\nMy hesitation comes from poor experiences in grade school. Two that come to mind are:\n\n1. Senior year of HS. I liked a girl from band. Her friend posted on his Snapchat story responding to an anonymous comment. The comment asked \"Is [crush] single?\" to which he responded \"Yeah, go hit her up\". I commented on the post asking how I can do that. He didn't directly answer the question, and instead asked \"Did you ask that?\" The conversation didn't continue after that. A few weeks later, I heard the girl was dating the male friend in question. On his story, he responded to an anonymous comment asking \"Are you and [crush] dating?\" by confirming the statement.\n\n2. Also senior year of HS. I tried pursuing a relationship with a girl from my class, and I admit I was not in the right in this situation because I didn't take signals of her not being interested, mistook friendliness for romantic attraction, and became distressed over not getting what I wanted. I asked several of my classmates if she was single, to which I got several different answers. Most of them just didn't know, some of them said she was single but not looking for a romantic partner, some of them said she had a boyfriend, and even one of them said she was flirting with a guy but I could somehow \"overtake\" him if I tried hard enough. One day I asked the girl \"are you dating someone\", to which she said no but it was an uncomfortable no. I admit this was a big mistake on my part. I strongly believe some of them told her I liked her. One day I messaged her asking about going to the beach during spring break with some of our peers, to which she said she would not be able to since she would be traveling out of the country. One day I was with some of her friends during the lunch break. They told me they knew I had a crush on her, so they tried videocalling her on my phone (it didn't go through), then asked what I would do if she had COVID (this was in 2020 right before quarantine), then dared me to sing a song about her. One of them also told me she would actually not be traveling out of the country and therefore could bring her on the beach trip. A few days later, the girl blocked me on my socials and the beach trip didn't happen due to quarantine. I was shocked because I felt that \"I did everything I was supposed to do, and I still got blocked.\"\n\nMy trust in other people went down after that and since then I became scared of asking for advice about a specific person from my peers out of fear of being given the wrong information and fucked over as a result. \n\nHowever, I have begun making some effort to rebuild my trust with my peers in that sense. It was only recently in early 2023 that I opened up to a select few of my closest friends about a platonic obsession (squish) with a female friend, and after opening up to them I felt a million times better. Now I would like to further open myself up and feel more comfortable about telling my peers about romance.\n\nCMV",
"date": "2024-01-19",
"id": "19ato86",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: It's not okay to ask for advice about a potential love interest from another friend.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/19ato86/cmv_its_not_okay_to_ask_for_advice_about_a/"
},
{
"author": "oversoul00",
"body": "You're examples sound less like looking for basic information and more like you looking for comfort and support.\n\n\nIf there is a spectrum between indirect and direct you do want to be on the side of being direct but there is some wiggle room to casually mention an interest or ask if it's worth pursuing. ",
"date": "2024-01-20",
"id": "kipf1x3",
"parent_id": "19ato86",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
"body": "Yesterday during my session with my therapist, she said it's okay to ask a woman's friend's about them if I'm interested in them. For example, if I ask if the person is single, they may say \"Yes, she is single, she might be interested\" or \"No, she has a boyfriend, sorry\", for example.\n\nHowever, I've been hesitant to do that and I like to treat crushes as a one-man, \"no one but yourself, trust no one\" job. This is for a few main reasons:\n\n1. I feel that it would be putting my energy into the wrong thing. People say that you should talk to the woman DIRECTLY when pursuing a relationship. This means gauging her potential interest through social cues, stating your intentions/asking her on a date, etc. I think telling other people you like a woman carries the risk of them passing the knowledge to your love interest *before* you can state your feelings directly, which can show a lack of confidence. It would block direct communication of your feelings and thereby reduce the chances of a *clearly communicated* romantic relationship. Why spend time and energy trying to learn about a woman and communicate your interests *through* another person when you could use the same time and energy to ask her out, get to know her better, and gauge her interest via social cues? Why do all sorts of crowdsourcing and gathering enough information to write a research paper over... a simple crush? Something that plenty of people have and can handle with ease?\n\n2. The woman's mutual friends aren't obligated to give me info about her. In fact, they may even give me the wrong info if they aren't comfortable giving me true information, which could screw me over in the long run. All of that could be avoided by cutting all the extra people out of the equation and talking to the woman directly.\n\n3. I feel that it entirely misses the point of dating. If you want to establish a relationship, people say, state your intentions and ask her out. The question is not: \"Is she single?\" \"Does she have a boyfriend?\" The question is: \"How can I communicate my intentions and seeing if this person likes me back?\" Do I want to find out if a woman is *single*, or if I have relationship potential with said woman?\n\nMy hesitation comes from poor experiences in grade school. Two that come to mind are:\n\n1. Senior year of HS. I liked a girl from band. Her friend posted on his Snapchat story responding to an anonymous comment. The comment asked \"Is [crush] single?\" to which he responded \"Yeah, go hit her up\". I commented on the post asking how I can do that. He didn't directly answer the question, and instead asked \"Did you ask that?\" The conversation didn't continue after that. A few weeks later, I heard the girl was dating the male friend in question. On his story, he responded to an anonymous comment asking \"Are you and [crush] dating?\" by confirming the statement.\n\n2. Also senior year of HS. I tried pursuing a relationship with a girl from my class, and I admit I was not in the right in this situation because I didn't take signals of her not being interested, mistook friendliness for romantic attraction, and became distressed over not getting what I wanted. I asked several of my classmates if she was single, to which I got several different answers. Most of them just didn't know, some of them said she was single but not looking for a romantic partner, some of them said she had a boyfriend, and even one of them said she was flirting with a guy but I could somehow \"overtake\" him if I tried hard enough. One day I asked the girl \"are you dating someone\", to which she said no but it was an uncomfortable no. I admit this was a big mistake on my part. I strongly believe some of them told her I liked her. One day I messaged her asking about going to the beach during spring break with some of our peers, to which she said she would not be able to since she would be traveling out of the country. One day I was with some of her friends during the lunch break. They told me they knew I had a crush on her, so they tried videocalling her on my phone (it didn't go through), then asked what I would do if she had COVID (this was in 2020 right before quarantine), then dared me to sing a song about her. One of them also told me she would actually not be traveling out of the country and therefore could bring her on the beach trip. A few days later, the girl blocked me on my socials and the beach trip didn't happen due to quarantine. I was shocked because I felt that \"I did everything I was supposed to do, and I still got blocked.\"\n\nMy trust in other people went down after that and since then I became scared of asking for advice about a specific person from my peers out of fear of being given the wrong information and fucked over as a result. \n\nHowever, I have begun making some effort to rebuild my trust with my peers in that sense. It was only recently in early 2023 that I opened up to a select few of my closest friends about a platonic obsession (squish) with a female friend, and after opening up to them I felt a million times better. Now I would like to further open myself up and feel more comfortable about telling my peers about romance.\n\nCMV",
"date": "2024-01-19",
"id": "19ato86",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: It's not okay to ask for advice about a potential love interest from another friend.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/19ato86/cmv_its_not_okay_to_ask_for_advice_about_a/"
},
{
"author": "Atticus104",
"body": "You can ask for advice from a mutual friend about someone you are interested in. Done well it demostrates you are serious, and that you respect their friends opinions, but there are some ways to do this and way it shouldn't be done. \n\nLimit the number of people you mention this to only 1 or 2 people. Asking a bunch of people behind her back while not speaking to her directly set up the situation where she likely felt powerless with a lot of attetnion on her, as not everyone is watching for signs of you haveing made a move. It is not a good feeling, and she could resent you for it. In stead if you are curious if they are seeing someone, wait for a time to ask subtly. Less you seem over eager the better. \n\nThere is not a secret formula for success, you will be rejected time to time. The difference knowing how not to get blocked is knowing when quit. You keep an aquintance, who may one day connect you to a better match. you never know.",
"date": "2024-01-20",
"id": "kipfyra",
"parent_id": "19ato86",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
"body": "Yesterday during my session with my therapist, she said it's okay to ask a woman's friend's about them if I'm interested in them. For example, if I ask if the person is single, they may say \"Yes, she is single, she might be interested\" or \"No, she has a boyfriend, sorry\", for example.\n\nHowever, I've been hesitant to do that and I like to treat crushes as a one-man, \"no one but yourself, trust no one\" job. This is for a few main reasons:\n\n1. I feel that it would be putting my energy into the wrong thing. People say that you should talk to the woman DIRECTLY when pursuing a relationship. This means gauging her potential interest through social cues, stating your intentions/asking her on a date, etc. I think telling other people you like a woman carries the risk of them passing the knowledge to your love interest *before* you can state your feelings directly, which can show a lack of confidence. It would block direct communication of your feelings and thereby reduce the chances of a *clearly communicated* romantic relationship. Why spend time and energy trying to learn about a woman and communicate your interests *through* another person when you could use the same time and energy to ask her out, get to know her better, and gauge her interest via social cues? Why do all sorts of crowdsourcing and gathering enough information to write a research paper over... a simple crush? Something that plenty of people have and can handle with ease?\n\n2. The woman's mutual friends aren't obligated to give me info about her. In fact, they may even give me the wrong info if they aren't comfortable giving me true information, which could screw me over in the long run. All of that could be avoided by cutting all the extra people out of the equation and talking to the woman directly.\n\n3. I feel that it entirely misses the point of dating. If you want to establish a relationship, people say, state your intentions and ask her out. The question is not: \"Is she single?\" \"Does she have a boyfriend?\" The question is: \"How can I communicate my intentions and seeing if this person likes me back?\" Do I want to find out if a woman is *single*, or if I have relationship potential with said woman?\n\nMy hesitation comes from poor experiences in grade school. Two that come to mind are:\n\n1. Senior year of HS. I liked a girl from band. Her friend posted on his Snapchat story responding to an anonymous comment. The comment asked \"Is [crush] single?\" to which he responded \"Yeah, go hit her up\". I commented on the post asking how I can do that. He didn't directly answer the question, and instead asked \"Did you ask that?\" The conversation didn't continue after that. A few weeks later, I heard the girl was dating the male friend in question. On his story, he responded to an anonymous comment asking \"Are you and [crush] dating?\" by confirming the statement.\n\n2. Also senior year of HS. I tried pursuing a relationship with a girl from my class, and I admit I was not in the right in this situation because I didn't take signals of her not being interested, mistook friendliness for romantic attraction, and became distressed over not getting what I wanted. I asked several of my classmates if she was single, to which I got several different answers. Most of them just didn't know, some of them said she was single but not looking for a romantic partner, some of them said she had a boyfriend, and even one of them said she was flirting with a guy but I could somehow \"overtake\" him if I tried hard enough. One day I asked the girl \"are you dating someone\", to which she said no but it was an uncomfortable no. I admit this was a big mistake on my part. I strongly believe some of them told her I liked her. One day I messaged her asking about going to the beach during spring break with some of our peers, to which she said she would not be able to since she would be traveling out of the country. One day I was with some of her friends during the lunch break. They told me they knew I had a crush on her, so they tried videocalling her on my phone (it didn't go through), then asked what I would do if she had COVID (this was in 2020 right before quarantine), then dared me to sing a song about her. One of them also told me she would actually not be traveling out of the country and therefore could bring her on the beach trip. A few days later, the girl blocked me on my socials and the beach trip didn't happen due to quarantine. I was shocked because I felt that \"I did everything I was supposed to do, and I still got blocked.\"\n\nMy trust in other people went down after that and since then I became scared of asking for advice about a specific person from my peers out of fear of being given the wrong information and fucked over as a result. \n\nHowever, I have begun making some effort to rebuild my trust with my peers in that sense. It was only recently in early 2023 that I opened up to a select few of my closest friends about a platonic obsession (squish) with a female friend, and after opening up to them I felt a million times better. Now I would like to further open myself up and feel more comfortable about telling my peers about romance.\n\nCMV",
"date": "2024-01-19",
"id": "19ato86",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: It's not okay to ask for advice about a potential love interest from another friend.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/19ato86/cmv_its_not_okay_to_ask_for_advice_about_a/"
},
{
"author": "FlyingNFireType",
"body": "I don't think her friend leaking information is a bad thing. One it prepares her for what is coming so there's less chance at a deer in the headlight moments and if you are really anxious/social awkward you're likely to fuck up your communication anyways and her friend can communicate it more clearly and give you more room for error and your initial attempt. Also people like people who they know like them more but that's not pure instant they need to process the information that the person likes them. All in all if the info got leaked you'd have a better chance.",
"date": "2024-01-20",
"id": "kiqhxtr",
"parent_id": "19ato86",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
]
]
| moderate |
[
{
"author": "fantasy53",
"body": " Considering the diversity of humans, some are more intelligent, attractive, stronger et cetera, I can’t see any materialistic reason to treat humans equally., Religious people have the justification that God created all of humanity and so we are all equal in the eyes of God, but I don’t see where the justification to treat humans equally comes from within a materialistic worldview.\nPlato argues that things which are the same should be treated equally, and the ancient Greeks had a concept of equality before the law although this only applied to rich Greek citizens, and not women slaves or foreigners., CMV",
"date": "2024-02-18",
"id": "1atw99p",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 0,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: human equality cannot be justified without reference to a higher power",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1atw99p/cmv_human_equality_cannot_be_justified_without/"
},
{
"author": "quantum_dan",
"body": "Equality, or more generally arrangements with equal liberty, fair equality of opportunity, and with other tradeoffs required to be to everyone's benefit, gives everyone good reason to participate in the social contract.\n\nIf someone is being screwed by the structure of society, they have little incentive to participate peacefully, and have to be held down with violence or the threat of violence. In purely pragmatic/amoral terms, that's costly, unstable, and dangerous to all involved; your society has to be structured to prevent a slave revolt or the equivalent, which expends resources that could otherwise be used to improve quality of life. And even with broadly successful suppression, there's always the risk of one-off violence or a damaging, if not successful, revolt.\n\nThat aside, fair equality of opportunity grants access to everyone's potential contributions, since there's no known way to perfectly assess that without letting people give it a shot. We've seen how much better off we are in the last few centuries with scientific and technological advancement, and maximizing the odds that talent, wherever it's found, can be applied to further advancement is to everyone's benefit.\n\nFinally, in a moral sense, human equality is easily justified (and this point has been made since antiquity) by reference to the fundamental characteristic of human agency. Almost no one actually wants their worth to be evaluated by some particular talent, since almost everyone would then be unalterably well below the top by no fault of their own. Human agency, on the other hand, is a shared characteristic across all humans who are healthy and developed enough to meaningfully participate in society.",
"date": "2024-02-18",
"id": "kr05a3b",
"parent_id": "1atw99p",
"score": 6,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "fantasy53",
"body": "Δ I can see how treating people equally can lead to everyone getting to achievetheir full potential, which is a good thing.",
"date": "2024-02-18",
"id": "kr0e57z",
"parent_id": "kr05a3b",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "DeltaBot",
"body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/quantum_dan ([94∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/quantum_dan)).\n\n^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
"date": "2024-02-18",
"id": "kr0eazb",
"parent_id": "kr0e57z",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
]
| [
[
{
"author": "fantasy53",
"body": " Considering the diversity of humans, some are more intelligent, attractive, stronger et cetera, I can’t see any materialistic reason to treat humans equally., Religious people have the justification that God created all of humanity and so we are all equal in the eyes of God, but I don’t see where the justification to treat humans equally comes from within a materialistic worldview.\nPlato argues that things which are the same should be treated equally, and the ancient Greeks had a concept of equality before the law although this only applied to rich Greek citizens, and not women slaves or foreigners., CMV",
"date": "2024-02-18",
"id": "1atw99p",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 0,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: human equality cannot be justified without reference to a higher power",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1atw99p/cmv_human_equality_cannot_be_justified_without/"
},
{
"author": "Finch20",
"body": "So while you claim that equality cannot be justified without a god, you also concede that not all gods consider all humans equal?",
"date": "2024-02-18",
"id": "kqzx73w",
"parent_id": "1atw99p",
"score": 7,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "fantasy53",
"body": " Considering the diversity of humans, some are more intelligent, attractive, stronger et cetera, I can’t see any materialistic reason to treat humans equally., Religious people have the justification that God created all of humanity and so we are all equal in the eyes of God, but I don’t see where the justification to treat humans equally comes from within a materialistic worldview.\nPlato argues that things which are the same should be treated equally, and the ancient Greeks had a concept of equality before the law although this only applied to rich Greek citizens, and not women slaves or foreigners., CMV",
"date": "2024-02-18",
"id": "1atw99p",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 0,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: human equality cannot be justified without reference to a higher power",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1atw99p/cmv_human_equality_cannot_be_justified_without/"
},
{
"author": "MercurianAspirations",
"body": "We don't need to appeal to any principle at all, we can just observe empirically that people are happier and societies are more stable and more prosperous when people are treated equally. If we want to build societies that are prosperous and happy, where people live long and peaceful lives, then available data suggests that equality is very good for that.",
"date": "2024-02-18",
"id": "kqzxqbe",
"parent_id": "1atw99p",
"score": 71,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Sad_Razzmatazzle",
"body": "What societies can you point to where this can be observed?",
"date": "2024-02-18",
"id": "kqzy8t0",
"parent_id": "kqzxqbe",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "fantasy53",
"body": " Considering the diversity of humans, some are more intelligent, attractive, stronger et cetera, I can’t see any materialistic reason to treat humans equally., Religious people have the justification that God created all of humanity and so we are all equal in the eyes of God, but I don’t see where the justification to treat humans equally comes from within a materialistic worldview.\nPlato argues that things which are the same should be treated equally, and the ancient Greeks had a concept of equality before the law although this only applied to rich Greek citizens, and not women slaves or foreigners., CMV",
"date": "2024-02-18",
"id": "1atw99p",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 0,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: human equality cannot be justified without reference to a higher power",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1atw99p/cmv_human_equality_cannot_be_justified_without/"
},
{
"author": "wibbly-water",
"body": ">treat humans equally\n\nWhat does this, in specific, mean to you?\n\nBecause depending on what you mean I either agree very strongly or couldn't disagree more.",
"date": "2024-02-18",
"id": "kqzxwxi",
"parent_id": "1atw99p",
"score": 5,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "NY_Giants_0314",
"body": "That is a good question. \n\nDoes that mean that men can compete in women sports? \n\nAnd vice versa?",
"date": "2024-02-18",
"id": "kr0818q",
"parent_id": "kqzxwxi",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "fantasy53",
"body": " Considering the diversity of humans, some are more intelligent, attractive, stronger et cetera, I can’t see any materialistic reason to treat humans equally., Religious people have the justification that God created all of humanity and so we are all equal in the eyes of God, but I don’t see where the justification to treat humans equally comes from within a materialistic worldview.\nPlato argues that things which are the same should be treated equally, and the ancient Greeks had a concept of equality before the law although this only applied to rich Greek citizens, and not women slaves or foreigners., CMV",
"date": "2024-02-18",
"id": "1atw99p",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 0,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: human equality cannot be justified without reference to a higher power",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1atw99p/cmv_human_equality_cannot_be_justified_without/"
},
{
"author": "DeltaBlues82",
"body": "We treat each other equal because that’s basic morality. Morals predate the invention of gods by millions of years. Even animals have basics morality.\n\nSome people don’t need an omnipresent being to tell them not to behave like an asshole.",
"date": "2024-02-18",
"id": "kqzy213",
"parent_id": "1atw99p",
"score": 7,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Sad_Razzmatazzle",
"body": "Many animals kill and eat the male who impregnated them.",
"date": "2024-02-18",
"id": "kqzydd6",
"parent_id": "kqzy213",
"score": -4,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "fantasy53",
"body": " Considering the diversity of humans, some are more intelligent, attractive, stronger et cetera, I can’t see any materialistic reason to treat humans equally., Religious people have the justification that God created all of humanity and so we are all equal in the eyes of God, but I don’t see where the justification to treat humans equally comes from within a materialistic worldview.\nPlato argues that things which are the same should be treated equally, and the ancient Greeks had a concept of equality before the law although this only applied to rich Greek citizens, and not women slaves or foreigners., CMV",
"date": "2024-02-18",
"id": "1atw99p",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 0,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: human equality cannot be justified without reference to a higher power",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1atw99p/cmv_human_equality_cannot_be_justified_without/"
},
{
"author": "Bodoblock",
"body": "Many animals have an innate biological sense of fairness, or an [aversion to inequity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inequity_aversion_in_animals). Humans are one of those animals. It's an important factor in our ability to cooperate at a larger scale.\n\nIt also helps facilitate societal cohesion and function. Even today, many of our large social tensions stem from a sense of inequity. Unequal application of policing and the law. Unequal opportunities. Unequal wealth.\n\nIt breeds a lot of resentment, which in turn, can generate a lot of dysfunction. Overruling popular discontent over unfairness often looks like the form of extreme state violence and oppression. It is in the general interest of a broader public then to want to maintain or pursue equity the best they can, lest they fall into such situations.",
"date": "2024-02-18",
"id": "kqzy33t",
"parent_id": "1atw99p",
"score": 9,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "NY_Giants_0314",
"body": "Yes, humans do have an innate sense of fairness, but fairness does not equate to equality. \n\nAccording to Daniel Liberian, anthropologist at Harvard, that innate sense of fairness was an evolutionary byproduct of survival as Hunter and Gatherer societies needed to cooperate and share with the entire tribe for survival. \n\n[https://heb.fas.harvard.edu/people/daniel-e-lieberman](https://heb.fas.harvard.edu/people/daniel-e-lieberman)\n\nHowever, these tribes were not equal. There were inherent hierarchies in tribes, which lead to hierarchies in civilizations, including the pharos in Egypt. \n\nUnfairness does bred resentment in today's modern society because many times justice is missed for a long period of time. For example, there was much cultural resentment for Ex-congressman George Santos. Yet, after being expelled from congress and indicted, that resentment has waned because it seems that justice is being realized.",
"date": "2024-02-18",
"id": "kr07pr3",
"parent_id": "kqzy33t",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "fantasy53",
"body": " Considering the diversity of humans, some are more intelligent, attractive, stronger et cetera, I can’t see any materialistic reason to treat humans equally., Religious people have the justification that God created all of humanity and so we are all equal in the eyes of God, but I don’t see where the justification to treat humans equally comes from within a materialistic worldview.\nPlato argues that things which are the same should be treated equally, and the ancient Greeks had a concept of equality before the law although this only applied to rich Greek citizens, and not women slaves or foreigners., CMV",
"date": "2024-02-18",
"id": "1atw99p",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 0,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: human equality cannot be justified without reference to a higher power",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1atw99p/cmv_human_equality_cannot_be_justified_without/"
},
{
"author": "WULTKB90",
"body": "Humans are a social species, we evolved to need one another so we evolved to care about our fellow humans. Its really as simple as that, regardless of what you consider equality having everyone on the same or similar footing helps everyone else in society, a rising tide lifts all boats and all that.",
"date": "2024-02-18",
"id": "kqzyzbj",
"parent_id": "1atw99p",
"score": 6,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "NY_Giants_0314",
"body": "We also evolve to mistrust one another, especially if we feel threaten on a physical, emotional, or psychological level.\n\nNeuroscientist David Rock created the SCARF Model for communication on the premise that we can easily be threaten by one another. [https://davidrock.net](https://davidrock.net)\n\nSo, is it fair that say that our desire to care about one another can easily be thwarted?",
"date": "2024-02-18",
"id": "kr08oo0",
"parent_id": "kqzyzbj",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "fantasy53",
"body": " Considering the diversity of humans, some are more intelligent, attractive, stronger et cetera, I can’t see any materialistic reason to treat humans equally., Religious people have the justification that God created all of humanity and so we are all equal in the eyes of God, but I don’t see where the justification to treat humans equally comes from within a materialistic worldview.\nPlato argues that things which are the same should be treated equally, and the ancient Greeks had a concept of equality before the law although this only applied to rich Greek citizens, and not women slaves or foreigners., CMV",
"date": "2024-02-18",
"id": "1atw99p",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 0,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: human equality cannot be justified without reference to a higher power",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1atw99p/cmv_human_equality_cannot_be_justified_without/"
},
{
"author": "TheManInTheShack",
"body": "I don’t need a made up invisible friend to tell me what is right and what is wrong. That’s what I have a conscious for. Human equality, giving everyone an equal chance to the degree possible, is simply being a reasonable, moral person.",
"date": "2024-02-18",
"id": "kqzz42f",
"parent_id": "1atw99p",
"score": 5,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "fantasy53",
"body": " Considering the diversity of humans, some are more intelligent, attractive, stronger et cetera, I can’t see any materialistic reason to treat humans equally., Religious people have the justification that God created all of humanity and so we are all equal in the eyes of God, but I don’t see where the justification to treat humans equally comes from within a materialistic worldview.\nPlato argues that things which are the same should be treated equally, and the ancient Greeks had a concept of equality before the law although this only applied to rich Greek citizens, and not women slaves or foreigners., CMV",
"date": "2024-02-18",
"id": "1atw99p",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 0,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: human equality cannot be justified without reference to a higher power",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1atw99p/cmv_human_equality_cannot_be_justified_without/"
},
{
"author": "anonymous_teve",
"body": "If you want to strengthen this, instead of saying 'human equality', I might re-phrase as 'equality of human rights' or 'human dignity'. Human equality is too ambiguous, and if someone just is a nihilist and thinks nothing means anything... well that's equality too, but it doesn't lead to human dignity or human rights.",
"date": "2024-02-18",
"id": "kqzz5ua",
"parent_id": "1atw99p",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "fantasy53",
"body": " Considering the diversity of humans, some are more intelligent, attractive, stronger et cetera, I can’t see any materialistic reason to treat humans equally., Religious people have the justification that God created all of humanity and so we are all equal in the eyes of God, but I don’t see where the justification to treat humans equally comes from within a materialistic worldview.\nPlato argues that things which are the same should be treated equally, and the ancient Greeks had a concept of equality before the law although this only applied to rich Greek citizens, and not women slaves or foreigners., CMV",
"date": "2024-02-18",
"id": "1atw99p",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 0,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: human equality cannot be justified without reference to a higher power",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1atw99p/cmv_human_equality_cannot_be_justified_without/"
},
{
"author": "Kamamura_CZ",
"body": "The cornerstone of a society based on equality is empathy as an evolutionary trait. There is absolutely nothing that science could explain or design better than any religion.",
"date": "2024-02-18",
"id": "kqzzd7d",
"parent_id": "1atw99p",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "fantasy53",
"body": " Considering the diversity of humans, some are more intelligent, attractive, stronger et cetera, I can’t see any materialistic reason to treat humans equally., Religious people have the justification that God created all of humanity and so we are all equal in the eyes of God, but I don’t see where the justification to treat humans equally comes from within a materialistic worldview.\nPlato argues that things which are the same should be treated equally, and the ancient Greeks had a concept of equality before the law although this only applied to rich Greek citizens, and not women slaves or foreigners., CMV",
"date": "2024-02-18",
"id": "1atw99p",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 0,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: human equality cannot be justified without reference to a higher power",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1atw99p/cmv_human_equality_cannot_be_justified_without/"
},
{
"author": "Cubusphere",
"body": "People are happier in more equal societies. Good outcomes are justification to do the thing that leads to that outcome. \n\nI don't believe in a higher power, yet I have a justification for acting morally. This seems to be impossible in your view. The fact that there are any moral atheists at all should change your view, unless you really believe they don't exist.",
"date": "2024-02-18",
"id": "kqzzet1",
"parent_id": "1atw99p",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "fantasy53",
"body": " Considering the diversity of humans, some are more intelligent, attractive, stronger et cetera, I can’t see any materialistic reason to treat humans equally., Religious people have the justification that God created all of humanity and so we are all equal in the eyes of God, but I don’t see where the justification to treat humans equally comes from within a materialistic worldview.\nPlato argues that things which are the same should be treated equally, and the ancient Greeks had a concept of equality before the law although this only applied to rich Greek citizens, and not women slaves or foreigners., CMV",
"date": "2024-02-18",
"id": "1atw99p",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 0,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: human equality cannot be justified without reference to a higher power",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1atw99p/cmv_human_equality_cannot_be_justified_without/"
},
{
"author": "NotMyBestMistake",
"body": "It's extremely easy to justify equality with zero reference to a deity.\n\nLet's start with a very pragmatic justification: it results in a safer society for everyone, including me. No one but the most arrogant idiot would ever believe that they are the pinnacle of humanity in any aspect, let alone all aspects. As such, equality means that my life is secured even if I'm not the best hockey player, country singer, banker, or soldier. Hell, I don't need to even be any of those things to enjoy life if equality exists.\n\nThen there's the idea that morals don't require a god and the only people who believe they do are people who have no actual morals. One of the great strengths of humanity is the ability to create a community and cooperate with each other; we'd be nothing if we kept to tightknit family units that murdered each other on sight. The capacity for empathy makes us strong, and that also leads us to understanding what fairness and equality are and that we dislike it when things aren't fair and equal. Hell, even people who ostensibly support inequality and unfairness typically do it out of their own twisted ignorance of the world rather than an actual rejection of the concepts.",
"date": "2024-02-18",
"id": "kqzzyoc",
"parent_id": "1atw99p",
"score": 10,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "UnderwatermelonEnjoy",
"body": "If anything, all our achievements are thanks to people not being treated equally. Meritocracy is what makes people want to improve, so they achieve a higher social status. If being a renowned biologist was treated the same as being working in fast food, people would just prefer dead end jobs that they can half ass",
"date": "2024-02-18",
"id": "kr05jra",
"parent_id": "kqzzyoc",
"score": -2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "fantasy53",
"body": " Considering the diversity of humans, some are more intelligent, attractive, stronger et cetera, I can’t see any materialistic reason to treat humans equally., Religious people have the justification that God created all of humanity and so we are all equal in the eyes of God, but I don’t see where the justification to treat humans equally comes from within a materialistic worldview.\nPlato argues that things which are the same should be treated equally, and the ancient Greeks had a concept of equality before the law although this only applied to rich Greek citizens, and not women slaves or foreigners., CMV",
"date": "2024-02-18",
"id": "1atw99p",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 0,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: human equality cannot be justified without reference to a higher power",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1atw99p/cmv_human_equality_cannot_be_justified_without/"
},
{
"author": "throwaway-fpga",
"body": "Locke started with a premise of Christian God's creation of humans in his image to say that people must be treated equally under the law because all humans are created in the image of God. Like you're saying. \n\nBut, Kant started with a set of secular premises and proved that, under those premises, one can't apply moral constraints differently to different people.\n\nTo prove any moral principle, you have to start with some premises. Or, if someone instead wants to make a pragmatic argument, there needs to be premises of objectives for that.\n\nOne of those premises to justify that could be a God (or even a God based on a particular religious doctrine. But, you can get to a similar place with other premises (such as starting with a premise that there is an objective moral system, like Kant).\n\nThere is a lot of focus on Greek philosphers because that's where a lot of moral philosophy started, but you can look at later work.",
"date": "2024-02-18",
"id": "kr002vq",
"parent_id": "1atw99p",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "fantasy53",
"body": " Considering the diversity of humans, some are more intelligent, attractive, stronger et cetera, I can’t see any materialistic reason to treat humans equally., Religious people have the justification that God created all of humanity and so we are all equal in the eyes of God, but I don’t see where the justification to treat humans equally comes from within a materialistic worldview.\nPlato argues that things which are the same should be treated equally, and the ancient Greeks had a concept of equality before the law although this only applied to rich Greek citizens, and not women slaves or foreigners., CMV",
"date": "2024-02-18",
"id": "1atw99p",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 0,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: human equality cannot be justified without reference to a higher power",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1atw99p/cmv_human_equality_cannot_be_justified_without/"
},
{
"author": "Such-Lawyer2555",
"body": "The way I personally and subjectively treat people is certainly not equal, it is based on many factors.\n\n\nHowever the equality which matters is in the legislation, that someone will not be handled differently under the law because of their characteristics. \n\n\nUnless the law is the higher power you speak of (I would say law is just an extension of human agreements) then no, no deity or similar force is needed. ",
"date": "2024-02-18",
"id": "kr00866",
"parent_id": "1atw99p",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "fantasy53",
"body": " Considering the diversity of humans, some are more intelligent, attractive, stronger et cetera, I can’t see any materialistic reason to treat humans equally., Religious people have the justification that God created all of humanity and so we are all equal in the eyes of God, but I don’t see where the justification to treat humans equally comes from within a materialistic worldview.\nPlato argues that things which are the same should be treated equally, and the ancient Greeks had a concept of equality before the law although this only applied to rich Greek citizens, and not women slaves or foreigners., CMV",
"date": "2024-02-18",
"id": "1atw99p",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 0,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: human equality cannot be justified without reference to a higher power",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1atw99p/cmv_human_equality_cannot_be_justified_without/"
},
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": ">I can’t see any materialistic reason to treat humans equally\n\nIf you are moral pragmatists and only care about material reasons, you should only consider merit and acts of people.\n\nEvery single person starts at the same base level (or zero level) and then can rise or fall depending how they act and what they do. It doesn't matter if you are black or gay or muslim or lizard person. They are all equal because their all valuation starts at the bottom. Now only thing that matter is what material or pragmatic actions they perform.",
"date": "2024-02-18",
"id": "kr00ztj",
"parent_id": "1atw99p",
"score": 5,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "fantasy53",
"body": " Considering the diversity of humans, some are more intelligent, attractive, stronger et cetera, I can’t see any materialistic reason to treat humans equally., Religious people have the justification that God created all of humanity and so we are all equal in the eyes of God, but I don’t see where the justification to treat humans equally comes from within a materialistic worldview.\nPlato argues that things which are the same should be treated equally, and the ancient Greeks had a concept of equality before the law although this only applied to rich Greek citizens, and not women slaves or foreigners., CMV",
"date": "2024-02-18",
"id": "1atw99p",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 0,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: human equality cannot be justified without reference to a higher power",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1atw99p/cmv_human_equality_cannot_be_justified_without/"
},
{
"author": "sophisticaden_",
"body": "I mean, I’ll do the basic Rawls shit. \n\nYou’ve been tasked with creating the ideal, moral society. You determine every aspect — how wealth is distributed, who’s on top, if there is a top, how power manifests itself. \n\nAssume that you have no idea where you’ll wind up in society; you’re just as likely to wind up on the very bottom as on top. \n\nWould you design that society to be equitable or inequitable?\n\nThere’s a super basic, completely secular, ethical justification for equity.",
"date": "2024-02-18",
"id": "kr028ud",
"parent_id": "1atw99p",
"score": 14,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "fantasy53",
"body": "But we are all born into societies, we can’t create their own from scratch.\nSo what’s the basis for treating someone Who is smarter than the average the same as everyone else,",
"date": "2024-02-18",
"id": "kr04p7q",
"parent_id": "kr028ud",
"score": -8,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "fantasy53",
"body": " Considering the diversity of humans, some are more intelligent, attractive, stronger et cetera, I can’t see any materialistic reason to treat humans equally., Religious people have the justification that God created all of humanity and so we are all equal in the eyes of God, but I don’t see where the justification to treat humans equally comes from within a materialistic worldview.\nPlato argues that things which are the same should be treated equally, and the ancient Greeks had a concept of equality before the law although this only applied to rich Greek citizens, and not women slaves or foreigners., CMV",
"date": "2024-02-18",
"id": "1atw99p",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 0,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: human equality cannot be justified without reference to a higher power",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1atw99p/cmv_human_equality_cannot_be_justified_without/"
},
{
"author": "NY_Giants_0314",
"body": "What make you certain that any characteristics that you are measuring are only measured on a linear dimension? Why would these qualities, such as attractiveness, be measured within a matrix?\n\nWhen we use a matrix to measure characteristics and attributes, there is no longer a hierarchy, only coordinates within the matrix.\n\nTo illustrate what I mean, in a simple but readily used form of comparison of attractiveness, many people will describe another person's level of attractiveness with several parameters, e.g. physique, facial composition, personal style, charm, intelligence, wealth, ability, sexuality, and more.\n\nIn fact, many adolescents play the game that she/he is a 10 in looks, 8 in personality, 7 in physique. \n\nIn the end, it's a matrix and not a linear scale. Therefore, how can we establish equals in a matrix? More importantly, how can we treat people unequally if there is no clear hierarchy to measure with?",
"date": "2024-02-18",
"id": "kr02tar",
"parent_id": "1atw99p",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "fantasy53",
"body": "And yet, there are people in society who are smarter, more good-looking and wealthier than the average.",
"date": "2024-02-18",
"id": "kr048ps",
"parent_id": "kr02tar",
"score": -2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "fantasy53",
"body": " Considering the diversity of humans, some are more intelligent, attractive, stronger et cetera, I can’t see any materialistic reason to treat humans equally., Religious people have the justification that God created all of humanity and so we are all equal in the eyes of God, but I don’t see where the justification to treat humans equally comes from within a materialistic worldview.\nPlato argues that things which are the same should be treated equally, and the ancient Greeks had a concept of equality before the law although this only applied to rich Greek citizens, and not women slaves or foreigners., CMV",
"date": "2024-02-18",
"id": "1atw99p",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 0,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: human equality cannot be justified without reference to a higher power",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1atw99p/cmv_human_equality_cannot_be_justified_without/"
},
{
"author": "woailyx",
"body": ">more intelligent, attractive, stronger et cetera,\n\nNone of those differences are an inherent justification for inequality under the law. \n\nYou can set up a system where people have equal opportunities, and the ones who are stronger, smarter, more attractive will take better advantage of those opportunities. You're still *treating* them equally, they're just succeeding differently on merit. \n\nAnd why wouldn't you want that? If you give people unequal opportunities, you're making it harder for some of them to succeed for arbitrary reasons. We're not better at predicting who will be successful than life is at sorting us, and each of our lives is built on the collective success of others. It makes logical sense to keep most systems as fair and meritocratic as we can, rather than holding back someone who might have been great at something.",
"date": "2024-02-18",
"id": "kr03yv4",
"parent_id": "1atw99p",
"score": 4,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "fantasy53",
"body": " Considering the diversity of humans, some are more intelligent, attractive, stronger et cetera, I can’t see any materialistic reason to treat humans equally., Religious people have the justification that God created all of humanity and so we are all equal in the eyes of God, but I don’t see where the justification to treat humans equally comes from within a materialistic worldview.\nPlato argues that things which are the same should be treated equally, and the ancient Greeks had a concept of equality before the law although this only applied to rich Greek citizens, and not women slaves or foreigners., CMV",
"date": "2024-02-18",
"id": "1atw99p",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 0,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: human equality cannot be justified without reference to a higher power",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1atw99p/cmv_human_equality_cannot_be_justified_without/"
},
{
"author": "ZappSmithBrannigan",
"body": ">Religious people have the justification that God created all of humanity and so we are all equal in the eyes of God, but I don’t see where the justification to treat humans equally comes from within a materialistic worldview.\n\nSeeing as how nobody has been ale to demonstrate that god exist, you're just making up a justification. We can do that to. \n\nAll humans are alive, and therefor deserve equal treatment. \n\nI can prove people are alive. You can not prove god exists, so my reason has a better basis than yours does",
"date": "2024-02-18",
"id": "kr04ne3",
"parent_id": "1atw99p",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "fantasy53",
"body": "So are dogs, cats, bacteria, flies et cetera.\nShould we treat them all as equal to humans.\nAny similarity you pick to justify equality between human beings is arbitrary.",
"date": "2024-02-18",
"id": "kr05ueh",
"parent_id": "kr04ne3",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "fantasy53",
"body": " Considering the diversity of humans, some are more intelligent, attractive, stronger et cetera, I can’t see any materialistic reason to treat humans equally., Religious people have the justification that God created all of humanity and so we are all equal in the eyes of God, but I don’t see where the justification to treat humans equally comes from within a materialistic worldview.\nPlato argues that things which are the same should be treated equally, and the ancient Greeks had a concept of equality before the law although this only applied to rich Greek citizens, and not women slaves or foreigners., CMV",
"date": "2024-02-18",
"id": "1atw99p",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 0,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: human equality cannot be justified without reference to a higher power",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1atw99p/cmv_human_equality_cannot_be_justified_without/"
},
{
"author": "NegativeOptimism",
"body": "What do you think equality is? Do you just mean equality before the law?\n\nBecause essentially no society treats everyone the exact same way, but many believe that it's worth striving for in certain mechanisms of society like healthcare, education and law. When we talk about equality as a concept, it devolves into an argument about definition, because the understanding of the concept can range from universal equal treatment of every person in every way, to fairly unequal treatment across society except for key areas. \n\nSo is this view an argument against the former or the latter? The former has never/will never exist and the latter doesn't require a deity to be justified.",
"date": "2024-02-18",
"id": "kr04qya",
"parent_id": "1atw99p",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "fantasy53",
"body": " Considering the diversity of humans, some are more intelligent, attractive, stronger et cetera, I can’t see any materialistic reason to treat humans equally., Religious people have the justification that God created all of humanity and so we are all equal in the eyes of God, but I don’t see where the justification to treat humans equally comes from within a materialistic worldview.\nPlato argues that things which are the same should be treated equally, and the ancient Greeks had a concept of equality before the law although this only applied to rich Greek citizens, and not women slaves or foreigners., CMV",
"date": "2024-02-18",
"id": "1atw99p",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 0,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: human equality cannot be justified without reference to a higher power",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1atw99p/cmv_human_equality_cannot_be_justified_without/"
},
{
"author": "ObviousSea9223",
"body": "No. Human equality in the way it's usually meant is trivially easy to justify, philosophically, from a materialist viewpoint. You could take various value systems within that frame and end in the same place either a priori or with reference to modern evidence.\n\nIt takes reference to a(n evil) higher power to logically *deny* it.",
"date": "2024-02-18",
"id": "kr056vi",
"parent_id": "1atw99p",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "fantasy53",
"body": " Considering the diversity of humans, some are more intelligent, attractive, stronger et cetera, I can’t see any materialistic reason to treat humans equally., Religious people have the justification that God created all of humanity and so we are all equal in the eyes of God, but I don’t see where the justification to treat humans equally comes from within a materialistic worldview.\nPlato argues that things which are the same should be treated equally, and the ancient Greeks had a concept of equality before the law although this only applied to rich Greek citizens, and not women slaves or foreigners., CMV",
"date": "2024-02-18",
"id": "1atw99p",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 0,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: human equality cannot be justified without reference to a higher power",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1atw99p/cmv_human_equality_cannot_be_justified_without/"
},
{
"author": "Nrdman",
"body": "Treating people equally leads to less suffering and more happiness. So it’s justifiable in a utilitarian pov",
"date": "2024-02-18",
"id": "kr05tmu",
"parent_id": "1atw99p",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "fantasy53",
"body": " Considering the diversity of humans, some are more intelligent, attractive, stronger et cetera, I can’t see any materialistic reason to treat humans equally., Religious people have the justification that God created all of humanity and so we are all equal in the eyes of God, but I don’t see where the justification to treat humans equally comes from within a materialistic worldview.\nPlato argues that things which are the same should be treated equally, and the ancient Greeks had a concept of equality before the law although this only applied to rich Greek citizens, and not women slaves or foreigners., CMV",
"date": "2024-02-18",
"id": "1atw99p",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 0,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: human equality cannot be justified without reference to a higher power",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1atw99p/cmv_human_equality_cannot_be_justified_without/"
},
{
"author": "Teddy_Funsisco",
"body": "Secularism is pretty cool, you should look into it.",
"date": "2024-02-18",
"id": "kr05zsv",
"parent_id": "1atw99p",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "fantasy53",
"body": " Considering the diversity of humans, some are more intelligent, attractive, stronger et cetera, I can’t see any materialistic reason to treat humans equally., Religious people have the justification that God created all of humanity and so we are all equal in the eyes of God, but I don’t see where the justification to treat humans equally comes from within a materialistic worldview.\nPlato argues that things which are the same should be treated equally, and the ancient Greeks had a concept of equality before the law although this only applied to rich Greek citizens, and not women slaves or foreigners., CMV",
"date": "2024-02-18",
"id": "1atw99p",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 0,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: human equality cannot be justified without reference to a higher power",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1atw99p/cmv_human_equality_cannot_be_justified_without/"
},
{
"author": "crazytumblweed999",
"body": "All human beings can feel suffering. \n\nSuffering is bad (undesirable).\n\nMost humans (the vast majority) feel empathy.\n\nNeither suffering nor empathy require a divine or moral source to exist \n\nThrough human equity we can mitigate as much suffering as technology and resources allow.\n\nA world with less overall suffering is more productive and produces more/better (healthy, educated, longer lived, better lives) people. A world with more suffering produces the opposite. \n\nTherefore it is justifiable to the individual and to the whole to mitigate suffering via human equity as not only in their own best interests but in the overall best interest of the people who's suffering can be mitigated. \n\nNo god/gods/divine authority required.",
"date": "2024-02-18",
"id": "kr08ub4",
"parent_id": "1atw99p",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "fantasy53",
"body": " Considering the diversity of humans, some are more intelligent, attractive, stronger et cetera, I can’t see any materialistic reason to treat humans equally., Religious people have the justification that God created all of humanity and so we are all equal in the eyes of God, but I don’t see where the justification to treat humans equally comes from within a materialistic worldview.\nPlato argues that things which are the same should be treated equally, and the ancient Greeks had a concept of equality before the law although this only applied to rich Greek citizens, and not women slaves or foreigners., CMV",
"date": "2024-02-18",
"id": "1atw99p",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 0,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: human equality cannot be justified without reference to a higher power",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1atw99p/cmv_human_equality_cannot_be_justified_without/"
},
{
"author": "No_Astronaut2795",
"body": "Societies typically do have some type of god or gods but they all are to pass down rules, morals, explain death, rituals etc.. Do I think it's necessary to believe in a god to be a good a good citizen or treat everyone ethically? No. You're limiting complicated human emotions and behavior into believer or not and then seem to be saying that equals good or bad.",
"date": "2024-02-18",
"id": "kr09xvx",
"parent_id": "1atw99p",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "fantasy53",
"body": " Considering the diversity of humans, some are more intelligent, attractive, stronger et cetera, I can’t see any materialistic reason to treat humans equally., Religious people have the justification that God created all of humanity and so we are all equal in the eyes of God, but I don’t see where the justification to treat humans equally comes from within a materialistic worldview.\nPlato argues that things which are the same should be treated equally, and the ancient Greeks had a concept of equality before the law although this only applied to rich Greek citizens, and not women slaves or foreigners., CMV",
"date": "2024-02-18",
"id": "1atw99p",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 0,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: human equality cannot be justified without reference to a higher power",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1atw99p/cmv_human_equality_cannot_be_justified_without/"
},
{
"author": "libra00",
"body": "Equality is not about ignoring the fact that some people are more attractive or better at poker or whatever, it's about treating everyone equally because regardless of what they're good at everyone is basically the same - a thinking, feeling human who is just as worthy of being treated with respect and dignity as everyone else - on the basis of the fact that everyone is equally capable of feeling pain, of suffering, of experiencing love or joy, the fact that we all have hopes and dreams, that we care for our loved ones, etc. None of those basic facts are changed by being good at basketball or bad at driving or whatever.",
"date": "2024-02-18",
"id": "kr0a2ba",
"parent_id": "1atw99p",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "fantasy53",
"body": " Considering the diversity of humans, some are more intelligent, attractive, stronger et cetera, I can’t see any materialistic reason to treat humans equally., Religious people have the justification that God created all of humanity and so we are all equal in the eyes of God, but I don’t see where the justification to treat humans equally comes from within a materialistic worldview.\nPlato argues that things which are the same should be treated equally, and the ancient Greeks had a concept of equality before the law although this only applied to rich Greek citizens, and not women slaves or foreigners., CMV",
"date": "2024-02-18",
"id": "1atw99p",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 0,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: human equality cannot be justified without reference to a higher power",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1atw99p/cmv_human_equality_cannot_be_justified_without/"
},
{
"author": "Danleburg",
"body": "I dont like it when people are treated worse because of their genetic or societal status so I think we should change it so that doesnt happen.\n\n\nThere, I justified human equality without referincing a god.",
"date": "2024-02-18",
"id": "kr0bco5",
"parent_id": "1atw99p",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "fantasy53",
"body": " Considering the diversity of humans, some are more intelligent, attractive, stronger et cetera, I can’t see any materialistic reason to treat humans equally., Religious people have the justification that God created all of humanity and so we are all equal in the eyes of God, but I don’t see where the justification to treat humans equally comes from within a materialistic worldview.\nPlato argues that things which are the same should be treated equally, and the ancient Greeks had a concept of equality before the law although this only applied to rich Greek citizens, and not women slaves or foreigners., CMV",
"date": "2024-02-18",
"id": "1atw99p",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 0,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: human equality cannot be justified without reference to a higher power",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1atw99p/cmv_human_equality_cannot_be_justified_without/"
},
{
"author": "Brainsonastick",
"body": "The concept of equality was never about our intelligence, attractiveness, strength, or anything like that. We all acknowledge some people are better at certain things than others.\n\nEquality just means that regardless of what traits you happen to be born with or develop, you are still deserving of the same basic rights as everyone else.\n\nSure, everything is easy to justify in a religious framework because you can just say “God says X” and suddenly it’s “justified”.\n\nHowever, it’s easy to justify in a secular framework as well. The idea of treating someone worse because of how they were born is pretty straightforwardly unjust.",
"date": "2024-02-18",
"id": "kr0ctva",
"parent_id": "1atw99p",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "fantasy53",
"body": " Considering the diversity of humans, some are more intelligent, attractive, stronger et cetera, I can’t see any materialistic reason to treat humans equally., Religious people have the justification that God created all of humanity and so we are all equal in the eyes of God, but I don’t see where the justification to treat humans equally comes from within a materialistic worldview.\nPlato argues that things which are the same should be treated equally, and the ancient Greeks had a concept of equality before the law although this only applied to rich Greek citizens, and not women slaves or foreigners., CMV",
"date": "2024-02-18",
"id": "1atw99p",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 0,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: human equality cannot be justified without reference to a higher power",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1atw99p/cmv_human_equality_cannot_be_justified_without/"
},
{
"author": "Various_Succotash_79",
"body": ">Religious people have the justification that God created all of humanity and so we are all equal in the eyes of God\n\nBut the entire concept of women being inferior is supported by the Bible and other holy books, so gender equality cannot in any way be attributed to religion.",
"date": "2024-02-18",
"id": "kr0f7zo",
"parent_id": "1atw99p",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "fantasy53",
"body": " Considering the diversity of humans, some are more intelligent, attractive, stronger et cetera, I can’t see any materialistic reason to treat humans equally., Religious people have the justification that God created all of humanity and so we are all equal in the eyes of God, but I don’t see where the justification to treat humans equally comes from within a materialistic worldview.\nPlato argues that things which are the same should be treated equally, and the ancient Greeks had a concept of equality before the law although this only applied to rich Greek citizens, and not women slaves or foreigners., CMV",
"date": "2024-02-18",
"id": "1atw99p",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 0,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: human equality cannot be justified without reference to a higher power",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1atw99p/cmv_human_equality_cannot_be_justified_without/"
},
{
"author": "dan_jeffers",
"body": "Empirically your premise doesn't hold up.\n\nThere are lots of religions and religious people who have hierarchical valuations of humans and some of the worst inequalities have found all the religious support they need.\n\nMany non-religious people, agnostics or atheists, have a strong belief in equality, at least in terms of rights and basic value. In fact, the whole Secular Humanist movement places equality and the respect of every individual very highly.",
"date": "2024-02-18",
"id": "kr0vkom",
"parent_id": "1atw99p",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "fantasy53",
"body": " Considering the diversity of humans, some are more intelligent, attractive, stronger et cetera, I can’t see any materialistic reason to treat humans equally., Religious people have the justification that God created all of humanity and so we are all equal in the eyes of God, but I don’t see where the justification to treat humans equally comes from within a materialistic worldview.\nPlato argues that things which are the same should be treated equally, and the ancient Greeks had a concept of equality before the law although this only applied to rich Greek citizens, and not women slaves or foreigners., CMV",
"date": "2024-02-18",
"id": "1atw99p",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 0,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: human equality cannot be justified without reference to a higher power",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1atw99p/cmv_human_equality_cannot_be_justified_without/"
},
{
"author": "aphroditex",
"body": "Genetically speaking, how much separates you from me? \n\nOn average, 0.1%. \n\nYes, that’s a lot. But it’s 1/999th the size of what is the same. \n\nWe’re members of the same species. We don’t even have as much variety, relatively speaking, as other species we recognize as distinct despite wider variances in body morphology.\n\nBeing of the same species is enough reason to recognize all humans as equally human.",
"date": "2024-02-18",
"id": "kr10gd1",
"parent_id": "1atw99p",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "fantasy53",
"body": " Considering the diversity of humans, some are more intelligent, attractive, stronger et cetera, I can’t see any materialistic reason to treat humans equally., Religious people have the justification that God created all of humanity and so we are all equal in the eyes of God, but I don’t see where the justification to treat humans equally comes from within a materialistic worldview.\nPlato argues that things which are the same should be treated equally, and the ancient Greeks had a concept of equality before the law although this only applied to rich Greek citizens, and not women slaves or foreigners., CMV",
"date": "2024-02-18",
"id": "1atw99p",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 0,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: human equality cannot be justified without reference to a higher power",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1atw99p/cmv_human_equality_cannot_be_justified_without/"
},
{
"author": "CremasterReflex",
"body": "Perhaps there is no a priori justification for human equality, but one only needs to review history of the times and places where it was disregarded and denied. When human equality is not respected, you end up with torture, extrajudicial killings, apartheid, mass graves, cattle cars, and gas chambers. \n\nThe only justification one needs to respect human equality is that not doing so results in murdered babies.",
"date": "2024-02-18",
"id": "kr1jg2h",
"parent_id": "1atw99p",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "fantasy53",
"body": " Considering the diversity of humans, some are more intelligent, attractive, stronger et cetera, I can’t see any materialistic reason to treat humans equally., Religious people have the justification that God created all of humanity and so we are all equal in the eyes of God, but I don’t see where the justification to treat humans equally comes from within a materialistic worldview.\nPlato argues that things which are the same should be treated equally, and the ancient Greeks had a concept of equality before the law although this only applied to rich Greek citizens, and not women slaves or foreigners., CMV",
"date": "2024-02-18",
"id": "1atw99p",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 0,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: human equality cannot be justified without reference to a higher power",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1atw99p/cmv_human_equality_cannot_be_justified_without/"
},
{
"author": "Green__lightning",
"body": "Humans aren't equal, they're all slightly different, and those differences can be measured. Equality comes from equality under the law, which got rid of things like nobles and peasants being considered different types of people, and given different punishments for crime.",
"date": "2024-02-18",
"id": "kr1u8vo",
"parent_id": "1atw99p",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "fantasy53",
"body": " Considering the diversity of humans, some are more intelligent, attractive, stronger et cetera, I can’t see any materialistic reason to treat humans equally., Religious people have the justification that God created all of humanity and so we are all equal in the eyes of God, but I don’t see where the justification to treat humans equally comes from within a materialistic worldview.\nPlato argues that things which are the same should be treated equally, and the ancient Greeks had a concept of equality before the law although this only applied to rich Greek citizens, and not women slaves or foreigners., CMV",
"date": "2024-02-18",
"id": "1atw99p",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 0,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: human equality cannot be justified without reference to a higher power",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1atw99p/cmv_human_equality_cannot_be_justified_without/"
},
{
"author": "Radical_Libertarian",
"body": "Human inequality seems to be more often justified by religion politically compared to human equality.\n\nFor example, in the Bible, women are expected to obey their husbands, and children their parents.",
"date": "2024-02-18",
"id": "kr1yyfg",
"parent_id": "1atw99p",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "fantasy53",
"body": " Considering the diversity of humans, some are more intelligent, attractive, stronger et cetera, I can’t see any materialistic reason to treat humans equally., Religious people have the justification that God created all of humanity and so we are all equal in the eyes of God, but I don’t see where the justification to treat humans equally comes from within a materialistic worldview.\nPlato argues that things which are the same should be treated equally, and the ancient Greeks had a concept of equality before the law although this only applied to rich Greek citizens, and not women slaves or foreigners., CMV",
"date": "2024-02-18",
"id": "1atw99p",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 0,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: human equality cannot be justified without reference to a higher power",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1atw99p/cmv_human_equality_cannot_be_justified_without/"
},
{
"author": "FinneousPJ",
"body": "human equality cannot be justified with reference to a higher power\n\n\nSince higher power cannot be adequately justified",
"date": "2024-02-19",
"id": "kr3syt3",
"parent_id": "1atw99p",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "fantasy53",
"body": " Considering the diversity of humans, some are more intelligent, attractive, stronger et cetera, I can’t see any materialistic reason to treat humans equally., Religious people have the justification that God created all of humanity and so we are all equal in the eyes of God, but I don’t see where the justification to treat humans equally comes from within a materialistic worldview.\nPlato argues that things which are the same should be treated equally, and the ancient Greeks had a concept of equality before the law although this only applied to rich Greek citizens, and not women slaves or foreigners., CMV",
"date": "2024-02-18",
"id": "1atw99p",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 0,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: human equality cannot be justified without reference to a higher power",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1atw99p/cmv_human_equality_cannot_be_justified_without/"
},
{
"author": "RexRatio",
"body": ">human equality cannot be justified without reference to a higher power\n\nBeg to differ. The FACT we're all members of the same species as can and has been proven by genetics is compelling enough to conclude that all humans are equal.\n\nOn the other hand, the CLAIMS of religions that certain in-groups are more important than others, such as:\n\n* Christian denominations claiming that only those who accept Jesus Christ as their savior can be saved, implying that followers of other religions might be excluded from salvation.\n* The caste system of Hinduism has been a source of discrimination, where individuals are categorized into specific castes based on birth. \n* In Islam, sectarian divisions or discrimination against non-Muslims have been associated with claims of the superiority of certain in-groups.\n* Jews start their day thanking Yahweh they were made Jewish and not gentile.\n* etc.",
"date": "2024-02-19",
"id": "kr4w4uc",
"parent_id": "1atw99p",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "fantasy53",
"body": " Considering the diversity of humans, some are more intelligent, attractive, stronger et cetera, I can’t see any materialistic reason to treat humans equally., Religious people have the justification that God created all of humanity and so we are all equal in the eyes of God, but I don’t see where the justification to treat humans equally comes from within a materialistic worldview.\nPlato argues that things which are the same should be treated equally, and the ancient Greeks had a concept of equality before the law although this only applied to rich Greek citizens, and not women slaves or foreigners., CMV",
"date": "2024-02-18",
"id": "1atw99p",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 0,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: human equality cannot be justified without reference to a higher power",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1atw99p/cmv_human_equality_cannot_be_justified_without/"
},
{
"author": "ShardsOfSalt",
"body": "How people should behave is based on subjective opinions. You can derive what actions to take that are objectively better than others from that but it is still based on subjectivity. You should move out of the way of a bullet, if you don't want to die. Similarly you should treat people equally if you have compassion. There's other reasons too but they are also subjective.\n\nEven if you have a God it's still subjective. There's no difference between \"God said you should treat people equally\" and \"I said you should treat people equally\" except that God might have a different penalty than I do for you not abiding by this rule.",
"date": "2024-02-20",
"id": "kr9clio",
"parent_id": "1atw99p",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
]
]
| moderate |
[
{
"author": "Hamza78ch11",
"body": "\nLast years was incredible for the advancement of technology via the creation and public release of LLMs (like ChatGPT) and diffusion models like DALL-e, Stable Diffusion, and Midjourney. \nThe release of ChatGPT has widely been met with acclaim and support and while there are very valid criticisms - it seems that LLMs are very palatable to people in a way that the art models were not. However, even before then AI continues to advance steadily. We are getting closer to self driving cars, AI is increasingly being used in medicine, in biology, chemistry, and programming without the moral objections that come with its use in the arts. The opposition to AI Art is founded in not understanding the technology, fear of misuse, and inconsistent moral policing or fear of unemployment and future career prospects. \n\nEssentially, immediately after release the art community was on the defensive about the images generated by these models. Many people voiced moral objections that AI art is “stealing” or that what the model was doing was simply putting together a collage of other artists work. That what it was doing was not “real art.” Most of the people who object to it fundamentally do not understand how it works. \nThe other most common arguments revolve around moral inconsistency or simply holding art to a standard that is inconsistent.\n\n1) AI art is a collage of other pictures \n\nIt isn’t. This one is not even a tiny bit true. Diffusion models work by a neural network wherein the network is trained to recognize that a certain tag has a certain value and attempts to recreate that Diffusion models are a type of generative model that create data similar to the data they were trained on. They do this by gradually adding Gaussian noise to training data, then learning to recover the data by going in the opposite direction. You give it 100 pictures of an apple and then ask it to make a picture of an apple and it gives you a green spherical blob and you say “this is not an apple” and continue forwards until it can pretty confidently give you an apple most of the time. You do this with thousands of concepts until it can pretty convincingly come up with an apple as drawn by Leonardo Davinci on his lunch break. At no point did Leonardo draw an apple and there are no other images for it to stick together. The image is the first of its kind and has not existed prior to this. \n\nBut let’s assume for a moment that it is actually just a collage. Collage is a recognized art form and thus either what the model made is art or collage isn’t.\n\n2) AI steals artists work \n\nOnly if you believe that you are stealing when you look at someone’s work and attempt to get better at it by imitating their style at home and having someone constantly critique how close you are. Since style cannot be considered intellectual property this argument is likely proposing one of two things: (1) either the AI is using actual pieces of someone’s work (or is close enough that it could be considered theft) which is not what should be happening given the training and if it is we can fairly admit that this is a problem. (2) the AI retains artist work to use, which we know that it doesn’t as once training is complete it is using only itself. Regardless, surgeons aren’t marching in the street because robots are being trained on their images or surgeries. Programmers haven’t unionized to block AI development or refuse to paste their code to GitHub out of fear of AI taking their job. Programmers aren’t writing “poisoned code” to make sure that anything they develop is unusable by data scraping in the future. \n\nBut let’s say that this is theft. Using art to learn is theft because the artists did not consent to it. I have never seen an AI art opponent direct people to avoid SD, DALLE, MJ and to instead use Adobe or ShutterStock or Getty. Despite the fact that these sources used their own proprietary images and pay their artists. The second that an ethical source of AI images is found the goalpost is moved to “No AI art ever” despite the images now being “ethically sourced”\n\n3) Artists are losing their jobs \n\nYes. This sucks. Just like the combine harvester made many farmhands suddenly unemployed, just like a he printing press made individual scribes no longer necessary, low skill art has now been replaced. If the entirety of your art skill was making doodles and the company now has a machine that doodles at 100x the efficiency even with an objectively worse product then your job is going the way of the dodo. The highest level of skill for artists will always remain in demand and companies will continue to need artists to edit/refine/improve the AIs content but increasingly less. But the people who cry out against this have zero moral objection to the idea that truck drivers are soon going to be replaced. They have no complaints that surgery could very soon be done better by a robot. They don’t mind at all that a computer can likely calculate your taxes better than an accountant very soon. The people who object see truck drivers, doctors, and accountants as disposable but not artists. For some reason artists are untouchable. For some reason art is sacred. I find it morally reprehensible that people that are anti-AI are okay with AI replacing manual labor or essentially any other job except their domain. Art isn’t special, it’s not holy, it isn’t sacred. It is a skilled labor just like any other. And just like any skilled labor the democratization of that labor will displace those at the lowest skill levels. That’s not wrong or bad or evil. It means that those people now have to pursue other means of survival and that’s okay. Maybe their art can be better, maybe they can find a niche that suits them with specific clients, or maybe they can expand outwards and discover entirely new forms of art that do not require a corporate sponsor to perform. If anyone can now make an okay landscape in a few keystrokes doesn’t that mean that you can now make landscapes purely for love or enjoyment? Why should the entire world hold itself back for your career when you wouldn’t do the same for anyone else’s? \n\nAnd it’s frankly dumb to hold back a technology only because it harms your career prospects. Otherwise, let’s bring lamplighters and stone throwers back so we can wake up to get to work because machines shouldn’t be waking people up \n\n4) AI art can create objectionable things \n\nYes. With how quickly AI is evolving, very quickly you’ll be able to create a video of president trump and Biden taking turns punching a small child. This is is horrible. It’s is also something technology is 100% capable of doing right now. It’s actually something technology was capable of back in 1902 or even earlier. It’s easier now. So we should advocate for policy that all AI images should have markers that identify them as AI. But attempting to stop this technology will only force it underground where much less savory types will have free run. Making AI harmless with good policy is much better than shutting it down In a Butlerian Jihad. \n \n\nThe camera democratized image creation. It did not make painting obsolete, it simply added another medium to create. The mobile phone democratized the camera and did not make photographers obsolete. AI art has only further increased the ease of access to art. Previously unskilled people can now bring their thoughts and feelings to life in a way they previously could not. It will not make artists obsolete - it will simply give them one more tool",
"date": "2024-02-22",
"id": "1ax3iou",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: AI art is inevitable and opposition to it is based on selfishness or misplaced moral outrage",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1ax3iou/cmv_ai_art_is_inevitable_and_opposition_to_it_is/"
},
{
"author": "Havenkeld",
"body": "Making AI harmless with good policy is a nice idea but if you've seen congress tech hearings you know we can rule that out for the near future. The producers and developers of the technology should assume there will not be good policy for awhile in their ethical considerations.\n\nAdditionally, if the technology is widely available and trivial to use, enforcing laws on any case by case basis will be of minimal effect. We can expect it work about as well as trying to stop internet piracy did. \n\nSo I think appealing to good policy as a means to prevent abuse really just isn't a good defense here, as it can't be taken for granted. It also just doesn't fundamentally address whether we're better off with the technology in general. I'm not particularly concerned about it other than its use for political propaganda. \n\nIt's generally true that technologies can be used toward good or bad ends, but a case can be made that they are more useful for one or the other, and we can assess that with respect to a given context that conditions the likely uses. We should be considering our context, and not a hypothetical one where our lawmakers understand the tech industry at all.",
"date": "2024-02-22",
"id": "krllpcy",
"parent_id": "1ax3iou",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Hamza78ch11",
"body": "!delta \n\nI don’t have any defense that bad actors will likely be able to get much farther with this technology in a non-art based environment",
"date": "2024-02-22",
"id": "krlmjy3",
"parent_id": "krllpcy",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "DeltaBot",
"body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Havenkeld ([286∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Havenkeld)).\n\n^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
"date": "2024-02-22",
"id": "krlmn8e",
"parent_id": "krlmjy3",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
]
| [
[
{
"author": "Hamza78ch11",
"body": "\nLast years was incredible for the advancement of technology via the creation and public release of LLMs (like ChatGPT) and diffusion models like DALL-e, Stable Diffusion, and Midjourney. \nThe release of ChatGPT has widely been met with acclaim and support and while there are very valid criticisms - it seems that LLMs are very palatable to people in a way that the art models were not. However, even before then AI continues to advance steadily. We are getting closer to self driving cars, AI is increasingly being used in medicine, in biology, chemistry, and programming without the moral objections that come with its use in the arts. The opposition to AI Art is founded in not understanding the technology, fear of misuse, and inconsistent moral policing or fear of unemployment and future career prospects. \n\nEssentially, immediately after release the art community was on the defensive about the images generated by these models. Many people voiced moral objections that AI art is “stealing” or that what the model was doing was simply putting together a collage of other artists work. That what it was doing was not “real art.” Most of the people who object to it fundamentally do not understand how it works. \nThe other most common arguments revolve around moral inconsistency or simply holding art to a standard that is inconsistent.\n\n1) AI art is a collage of other pictures \n\nIt isn’t. This one is not even a tiny bit true. Diffusion models work by a neural network wherein the network is trained to recognize that a certain tag has a certain value and attempts to recreate that Diffusion models are a type of generative model that create data similar to the data they were trained on. They do this by gradually adding Gaussian noise to training data, then learning to recover the data by going in the opposite direction. You give it 100 pictures of an apple and then ask it to make a picture of an apple and it gives you a green spherical blob and you say “this is not an apple” and continue forwards until it can pretty confidently give you an apple most of the time. You do this with thousands of concepts until it can pretty convincingly come up with an apple as drawn by Leonardo Davinci on his lunch break. At no point did Leonardo draw an apple and there are no other images for it to stick together. The image is the first of its kind and has not existed prior to this. \n\nBut let’s assume for a moment that it is actually just a collage. Collage is a recognized art form and thus either what the model made is art or collage isn’t.\n\n2) AI steals artists work \n\nOnly if you believe that you are stealing when you look at someone’s work and attempt to get better at it by imitating their style at home and having someone constantly critique how close you are. Since style cannot be considered intellectual property this argument is likely proposing one of two things: (1) either the AI is using actual pieces of someone’s work (or is close enough that it could be considered theft) which is not what should be happening given the training and if it is we can fairly admit that this is a problem. (2) the AI retains artist work to use, which we know that it doesn’t as once training is complete it is using only itself. Regardless, surgeons aren’t marching in the street because robots are being trained on their images or surgeries. Programmers haven’t unionized to block AI development or refuse to paste their code to GitHub out of fear of AI taking their job. Programmers aren’t writing “poisoned code” to make sure that anything they develop is unusable by data scraping in the future. \n\nBut let’s say that this is theft. Using art to learn is theft because the artists did not consent to it. I have never seen an AI art opponent direct people to avoid SD, DALLE, MJ and to instead use Adobe or ShutterStock or Getty. Despite the fact that these sources used their own proprietary images and pay their artists. The second that an ethical source of AI images is found the goalpost is moved to “No AI art ever” despite the images now being “ethically sourced”\n\n3) Artists are losing their jobs \n\nYes. This sucks. Just like the combine harvester made many farmhands suddenly unemployed, just like a he printing press made individual scribes no longer necessary, low skill art has now been replaced. If the entirety of your art skill was making doodles and the company now has a machine that doodles at 100x the efficiency even with an objectively worse product then your job is going the way of the dodo. The highest level of skill for artists will always remain in demand and companies will continue to need artists to edit/refine/improve the AIs content but increasingly less. But the people who cry out against this have zero moral objection to the idea that truck drivers are soon going to be replaced. They have no complaints that surgery could very soon be done better by a robot. They don’t mind at all that a computer can likely calculate your taxes better than an accountant very soon. The people who object see truck drivers, doctors, and accountants as disposable but not artists. For some reason artists are untouchable. For some reason art is sacred. I find it morally reprehensible that people that are anti-AI are okay with AI replacing manual labor or essentially any other job except their domain. Art isn’t special, it’s not holy, it isn’t sacred. It is a skilled labor just like any other. And just like any skilled labor the democratization of that labor will displace those at the lowest skill levels. That’s not wrong or bad or evil. It means that those people now have to pursue other means of survival and that’s okay. Maybe their art can be better, maybe they can find a niche that suits them with specific clients, or maybe they can expand outwards and discover entirely new forms of art that do not require a corporate sponsor to perform. If anyone can now make an okay landscape in a few keystrokes doesn’t that mean that you can now make landscapes purely for love or enjoyment? Why should the entire world hold itself back for your career when you wouldn’t do the same for anyone else’s? \n\nAnd it’s frankly dumb to hold back a technology only because it harms your career prospects. Otherwise, let’s bring lamplighters and stone throwers back so we can wake up to get to work because machines shouldn’t be waking people up \n\n4) AI art can create objectionable things \n\nYes. With how quickly AI is evolving, very quickly you’ll be able to create a video of president trump and Biden taking turns punching a small child. This is is horrible. It’s is also something technology is 100% capable of doing right now. It’s actually something technology was capable of back in 1902 or even earlier. It’s easier now. So we should advocate for policy that all AI images should have markers that identify them as AI. But attempting to stop this technology will only force it underground where much less savory types will have free run. Making AI harmless with good policy is much better than shutting it down In a Butlerian Jihad. \n \n\nThe camera democratized image creation. It did not make painting obsolete, it simply added another medium to create. The mobile phone democratized the camera and did not make photographers obsolete. AI art has only further increased the ease of access to art. Previously unskilled people can now bring their thoughts and feelings to life in a way they previously could not. It will not make artists obsolete - it will simply give them one more tool",
"date": "2024-02-22",
"id": "1ax3iou",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: AI art is inevitable and opposition to it is based on selfishness or misplaced moral outrage",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1ax3iou/cmv_ai_art_is_inevitable_and_opposition_to_it_is/"
},
{
"author": "MercurianAspirations",
"body": "I think you missed out completely on my biggest complaint: AI art is soulless garbage. It sucks. It isn't good and it's presence in media will rob me of enjoyment of that media\n\nLike, look at the soulsboune community, for example. There are people who obsessively pore over every detail, no matter how small, in those games because decoding the 'lore' of the games is really fun. The delight of discovering a missed connection or a hidden detail is unmatchable. But as soon as games like these start being made using AI, that goes away forever, right? Nobody will look at a texture of a gravestone in some forgotten corner of a game map again, because they will just assume that it has no meaning because it was made by an AI that inherently can't understand or give a shit about meaning. It just looks the way it does because that's the best the generator could do. Or worse, AI might generate things that appear to have story meaning, but don't, because they were made by an AI that didn't know the story - this has already happened with one game, *Stasis: Bone Totem,* and robbed a lot of people of appreciating that games story because background images that should have been story-relevant were just randomly generated by an AI.\n\nI'm also very interested in film because I like analyzing the staging, blocking, and cinematography of shots. I like to consider the choices made by the director. AI generated imagery will inherently never have this interest for me, and the existence of AI generated video will permanently rob me of some of the enjoyment of it, because why should I bother analyzing something that might have just been spat out by an algorithm?",
"date": "2024-02-22",
"id": "krlbic0",
"parent_id": "1ax3iou",
"score": 35,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Green__lightning",
"body": "That's an interesting point, and largely boils down to significant vs insignificant detail. Ideally, all detail should be significant, but this is impractical and clearly not the case even in human made games, where maybe it's significant that the drapes are blue, or maybe they're just blue because it looked nice, and has no bearing on the story. In brief, complaining about this now is like complaining about the lack of story in The Arrival of a Train, that 1896 film of exactly what it sounds like. Which is to say, I expect AI films will be less creatively bankrupt than what's in theaters now within the decade because of the increased accessibility of filmmaking, and and the AI itself will be good enough to just quietly invent it's own meaning in things in 20-30 years.",
"date": "2024-02-22",
"id": "krlc5i0",
"parent_id": "krlbic0",
"score": 6,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Hamza78ch11",
"body": "\nLast years was incredible for the advancement of technology via the creation and public release of LLMs (like ChatGPT) and diffusion models like DALL-e, Stable Diffusion, and Midjourney. \nThe release of ChatGPT has widely been met with acclaim and support and while there are very valid criticisms - it seems that LLMs are very palatable to people in a way that the art models were not. However, even before then AI continues to advance steadily. We are getting closer to self driving cars, AI is increasingly being used in medicine, in biology, chemistry, and programming without the moral objections that come with its use in the arts. The opposition to AI Art is founded in not understanding the technology, fear of misuse, and inconsistent moral policing or fear of unemployment and future career prospects. \n\nEssentially, immediately after release the art community was on the defensive about the images generated by these models. Many people voiced moral objections that AI art is “stealing” or that what the model was doing was simply putting together a collage of other artists work. That what it was doing was not “real art.” Most of the people who object to it fundamentally do not understand how it works. \nThe other most common arguments revolve around moral inconsistency or simply holding art to a standard that is inconsistent.\n\n1) AI art is a collage of other pictures \n\nIt isn’t. This one is not even a tiny bit true. Diffusion models work by a neural network wherein the network is trained to recognize that a certain tag has a certain value and attempts to recreate that Diffusion models are a type of generative model that create data similar to the data they were trained on. They do this by gradually adding Gaussian noise to training data, then learning to recover the data by going in the opposite direction. You give it 100 pictures of an apple and then ask it to make a picture of an apple and it gives you a green spherical blob and you say “this is not an apple” and continue forwards until it can pretty confidently give you an apple most of the time. You do this with thousands of concepts until it can pretty convincingly come up with an apple as drawn by Leonardo Davinci on his lunch break. At no point did Leonardo draw an apple and there are no other images for it to stick together. The image is the first of its kind and has not existed prior to this. \n\nBut let’s assume for a moment that it is actually just a collage. Collage is a recognized art form and thus either what the model made is art or collage isn’t.\n\n2) AI steals artists work \n\nOnly if you believe that you are stealing when you look at someone’s work and attempt to get better at it by imitating their style at home and having someone constantly critique how close you are. Since style cannot be considered intellectual property this argument is likely proposing one of two things: (1) either the AI is using actual pieces of someone’s work (or is close enough that it could be considered theft) which is not what should be happening given the training and if it is we can fairly admit that this is a problem. (2) the AI retains artist work to use, which we know that it doesn’t as once training is complete it is using only itself. Regardless, surgeons aren’t marching in the street because robots are being trained on their images or surgeries. Programmers haven’t unionized to block AI development or refuse to paste their code to GitHub out of fear of AI taking their job. Programmers aren’t writing “poisoned code” to make sure that anything they develop is unusable by data scraping in the future. \n\nBut let’s say that this is theft. Using art to learn is theft because the artists did not consent to it. I have never seen an AI art opponent direct people to avoid SD, DALLE, MJ and to instead use Adobe or ShutterStock or Getty. Despite the fact that these sources used their own proprietary images and pay their artists. The second that an ethical source of AI images is found the goalpost is moved to “No AI art ever” despite the images now being “ethically sourced”\n\n3) Artists are losing their jobs \n\nYes. This sucks. Just like the combine harvester made many farmhands suddenly unemployed, just like a he printing press made individual scribes no longer necessary, low skill art has now been replaced. If the entirety of your art skill was making doodles and the company now has a machine that doodles at 100x the efficiency even with an objectively worse product then your job is going the way of the dodo. The highest level of skill for artists will always remain in demand and companies will continue to need artists to edit/refine/improve the AIs content but increasingly less. But the people who cry out against this have zero moral objection to the idea that truck drivers are soon going to be replaced. They have no complaints that surgery could very soon be done better by a robot. They don’t mind at all that a computer can likely calculate your taxes better than an accountant very soon. The people who object see truck drivers, doctors, and accountants as disposable but not artists. For some reason artists are untouchable. For some reason art is sacred. I find it morally reprehensible that people that are anti-AI are okay with AI replacing manual labor or essentially any other job except their domain. Art isn’t special, it’s not holy, it isn’t sacred. It is a skilled labor just like any other. And just like any skilled labor the democratization of that labor will displace those at the lowest skill levels. That’s not wrong or bad or evil. It means that those people now have to pursue other means of survival and that’s okay. Maybe their art can be better, maybe they can find a niche that suits them with specific clients, or maybe they can expand outwards and discover entirely new forms of art that do not require a corporate sponsor to perform. If anyone can now make an okay landscape in a few keystrokes doesn’t that mean that you can now make landscapes purely for love or enjoyment? Why should the entire world hold itself back for your career when you wouldn’t do the same for anyone else’s? \n\nAnd it’s frankly dumb to hold back a technology only because it harms your career prospects. Otherwise, let’s bring lamplighters and stone throwers back so we can wake up to get to work because machines shouldn’t be waking people up \n\n4) AI art can create objectionable things \n\nYes. With how quickly AI is evolving, very quickly you’ll be able to create a video of president trump and Biden taking turns punching a small child. This is is horrible. It’s is also something technology is 100% capable of doing right now. It’s actually something technology was capable of back in 1902 or even earlier. It’s easier now. So we should advocate for policy that all AI images should have markers that identify them as AI. But attempting to stop this technology will only force it underground where much less savory types will have free run. Making AI harmless with good policy is much better than shutting it down In a Butlerian Jihad. \n \n\nThe camera democratized image creation. It did not make painting obsolete, it simply added another medium to create. The mobile phone democratized the camera and did not make photographers obsolete. AI art has only further increased the ease of access to art. Previously unskilled people can now bring their thoughts and feelings to life in a way they previously could not. It will not make artists obsolete - it will simply give them one more tool",
"date": "2024-02-22",
"id": "1ax3iou",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: AI art is inevitable and opposition to it is based on selfishness or misplaced moral outrage",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1ax3iou/cmv_ai_art_is_inevitable_and_opposition_to_it_is/"
},
{
"author": "Green__lightning",
"body": "As a generally pro-AI person, there are two main problems with AI art: Firstly is the simple one, that it's creating a floor for professional artists, in that they have to be better then the AI, given the speed this floor is rising at, this will soon be a problem, largely because artists can't get any low level work, and thus few will get good enough to beat the AI. \n\nThe second problem is weirder. You know how before photography, all pictures were as potentially fictional as whatever someone said? We're back to that now, given that AI can render passable fakes of most photorealistic images, video, and audio. This is nothing new for images, audio recording however has always been factual unless you count manually imitating voices. Generally speaking, I don't think it's bad that people can now make passable photorealistic images of most things, but it is bad given what we've built on the idea of photo evidence, and we're going to have at least a bit of a crisis from the breakdown of that as a valid concept. \n\nI see two likely outcomes long term. The first is that video can be tied to a camera cryptographically, and this means you might have to submit your entire dashcam as evidence, it's still valid. \n\nThe second, more likely possibility, is that images, video, and audio become as malleable as text and speech, given that people further integrate into their computers, first through augmented reality, then directly through implants. It becomes entirely normal to imagine something, push that thought to your AI, which then renders it, and you send it to your friends. People likely become effectively telepathic through their implants, and the internet becomes a digital fog which lays over the real world, perfectly perceived by the augmented as they go about their daily life.",
"date": "2024-02-22",
"id": "krlbk8t",
"parent_id": "1ax3iou",
"score": 6,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Hamza78ch11",
"body": "I actually hadn’t considered the second case but I think it is generally in line with my view that technology and policy can ensure good practice with AI and prevent bad actors from getting too much control",
"date": "2024-02-22",
"id": "krlcknv",
"parent_id": "krlbk8t",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Hamza78ch11",
"body": "\nLast years was incredible for the advancement of technology via the creation and public release of LLMs (like ChatGPT) and diffusion models like DALL-e, Stable Diffusion, and Midjourney. \nThe release of ChatGPT has widely been met with acclaim and support and while there are very valid criticisms - it seems that LLMs are very palatable to people in a way that the art models were not. However, even before then AI continues to advance steadily. We are getting closer to self driving cars, AI is increasingly being used in medicine, in biology, chemistry, and programming without the moral objections that come with its use in the arts. The opposition to AI Art is founded in not understanding the technology, fear of misuse, and inconsistent moral policing or fear of unemployment and future career prospects. \n\nEssentially, immediately after release the art community was on the defensive about the images generated by these models. Many people voiced moral objections that AI art is “stealing” or that what the model was doing was simply putting together a collage of other artists work. That what it was doing was not “real art.” Most of the people who object to it fundamentally do not understand how it works. \nThe other most common arguments revolve around moral inconsistency or simply holding art to a standard that is inconsistent.\n\n1) AI art is a collage of other pictures \n\nIt isn’t. This one is not even a tiny bit true. Diffusion models work by a neural network wherein the network is trained to recognize that a certain tag has a certain value and attempts to recreate that Diffusion models are a type of generative model that create data similar to the data they were trained on. They do this by gradually adding Gaussian noise to training data, then learning to recover the data by going in the opposite direction. You give it 100 pictures of an apple and then ask it to make a picture of an apple and it gives you a green spherical blob and you say “this is not an apple” and continue forwards until it can pretty confidently give you an apple most of the time. You do this with thousands of concepts until it can pretty convincingly come up with an apple as drawn by Leonardo Davinci on his lunch break. At no point did Leonardo draw an apple and there are no other images for it to stick together. The image is the first of its kind and has not existed prior to this. \n\nBut let’s assume for a moment that it is actually just a collage. Collage is a recognized art form and thus either what the model made is art or collage isn’t.\n\n2) AI steals artists work \n\nOnly if you believe that you are stealing when you look at someone’s work and attempt to get better at it by imitating their style at home and having someone constantly critique how close you are. Since style cannot be considered intellectual property this argument is likely proposing one of two things: (1) either the AI is using actual pieces of someone’s work (or is close enough that it could be considered theft) which is not what should be happening given the training and if it is we can fairly admit that this is a problem. (2) the AI retains artist work to use, which we know that it doesn’t as once training is complete it is using only itself. Regardless, surgeons aren’t marching in the street because robots are being trained on their images or surgeries. Programmers haven’t unionized to block AI development or refuse to paste their code to GitHub out of fear of AI taking their job. Programmers aren’t writing “poisoned code” to make sure that anything they develop is unusable by data scraping in the future. \n\nBut let’s say that this is theft. Using art to learn is theft because the artists did not consent to it. I have never seen an AI art opponent direct people to avoid SD, DALLE, MJ and to instead use Adobe or ShutterStock or Getty. Despite the fact that these sources used their own proprietary images and pay their artists. The second that an ethical source of AI images is found the goalpost is moved to “No AI art ever” despite the images now being “ethically sourced”\n\n3) Artists are losing their jobs \n\nYes. This sucks. Just like the combine harvester made many farmhands suddenly unemployed, just like a he printing press made individual scribes no longer necessary, low skill art has now been replaced. If the entirety of your art skill was making doodles and the company now has a machine that doodles at 100x the efficiency even with an objectively worse product then your job is going the way of the dodo. The highest level of skill for artists will always remain in demand and companies will continue to need artists to edit/refine/improve the AIs content but increasingly less. But the people who cry out against this have zero moral objection to the idea that truck drivers are soon going to be replaced. They have no complaints that surgery could very soon be done better by a robot. They don’t mind at all that a computer can likely calculate your taxes better than an accountant very soon. The people who object see truck drivers, doctors, and accountants as disposable but not artists. For some reason artists are untouchable. For some reason art is sacred. I find it morally reprehensible that people that are anti-AI are okay with AI replacing manual labor or essentially any other job except their domain. Art isn’t special, it’s not holy, it isn’t sacred. It is a skilled labor just like any other. And just like any skilled labor the democratization of that labor will displace those at the lowest skill levels. That’s not wrong or bad or evil. It means that those people now have to pursue other means of survival and that’s okay. Maybe their art can be better, maybe they can find a niche that suits them with specific clients, or maybe they can expand outwards and discover entirely new forms of art that do not require a corporate sponsor to perform. If anyone can now make an okay landscape in a few keystrokes doesn’t that mean that you can now make landscapes purely for love or enjoyment? Why should the entire world hold itself back for your career when you wouldn’t do the same for anyone else’s? \n\nAnd it’s frankly dumb to hold back a technology only because it harms your career prospects. Otherwise, let’s bring lamplighters and stone throwers back so we can wake up to get to work because machines shouldn’t be waking people up \n\n4) AI art can create objectionable things \n\nYes. With how quickly AI is evolving, very quickly you’ll be able to create a video of president trump and Biden taking turns punching a small child. This is is horrible. It’s is also something technology is 100% capable of doing right now. It’s actually something technology was capable of back in 1902 or even earlier. It’s easier now. So we should advocate for policy that all AI images should have markers that identify them as AI. But attempting to stop this technology will only force it underground where much less savory types will have free run. Making AI harmless with good policy is much better than shutting it down In a Butlerian Jihad. \n \n\nThe camera democratized image creation. It did not make painting obsolete, it simply added another medium to create. The mobile phone democratized the camera and did not make photographers obsolete. AI art has only further increased the ease of access to art. Previously unskilled people can now bring their thoughts and feelings to life in a way they previously could not. It will not make artists obsolete - it will simply give them one more tool",
"date": "2024-02-22",
"id": "1ax3iou",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: AI art is inevitable and opposition to it is based on selfishness or misplaced moral outrage",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1ax3iou/cmv_ai_art_is_inevitable_and_opposition_to_it_is/"
},
{
"author": "5Tenacious_Dee5",
"body": "I don't mind AI art. AI is a tool.\n\nBut to think it doesn't have IP implications is just ignorant. But I'm sure this can be mitigated, using AI ironically. Just teach it the rules.",
"date": "2024-02-22",
"id": "krlc2j9",
"parent_id": "1ax3iou",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Hamza78ch11",
"body": "I think you agree with me lol",
"date": "2024-02-22",
"id": "krlcf86",
"parent_id": "krlc2j9",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Hamza78ch11",
"body": "\nLast years was incredible for the advancement of technology via the creation and public release of LLMs (like ChatGPT) and diffusion models like DALL-e, Stable Diffusion, and Midjourney. \nThe release of ChatGPT has widely been met with acclaim and support and while there are very valid criticisms - it seems that LLMs are very palatable to people in a way that the art models were not. However, even before then AI continues to advance steadily. We are getting closer to self driving cars, AI is increasingly being used in medicine, in biology, chemistry, and programming without the moral objections that come with its use in the arts. The opposition to AI Art is founded in not understanding the technology, fear of misuse, and inconsistent moral policing or fear of unemployment and future career prospects. \n\nEssentially, immediately after release the art community was on the defensive about the images generated by these models. Many people voiced moral objections that AI art is “stealing” or that what the model was doing was simply putting together a collage of other artists work. That what it was doing was not “real art.” Most of the people who object to it fundamentally do not understand how it works. \nThe other most common arguments revolve around moral inconsistency or simply holding art to a standard that is inconsistent.\n\n1) AI art is a collage of other pictures \n\nIt isn’t. This one is not even a tiny bit true. Diffusion models work by a neural network wherein the network is trained to recognize that a certain tag has a certain value and attempts to recreate that Diffusion models are a type of generative model that create data similar to the data they were trained on. They do this by gradually adding Gaussian noise to training data, then learning to recover the data by going in the opposite direction. You give it 100 pictures of an apple and then ask it to make a picture of an apple and it gives you a green spherical blob and you say “this is not an apple” and continue forwards until it can pretty confidently give you an apple most of the time. You do this with thousands of concepts until it can pretty convincingly come up with an apple as drawn by Leonardo Davinci on his lunch break. At no point did Leonardo draw an apple and there are no other images for it to stick together. The image is the first of its kind and has not existed prior to this. \n\nBut let’s assume for a moment that it is actually just a collage. Collage is a recognized art form and thus either what the model made is art or collage isn’t.\n\n2) AI steals artists work \n\nOnly if you believe that you are stealing when you look at someone’s work and attempt to get better at it by imitating their style at home and having someone constantly critique how close you are. Since style cannot be considered intellectual property this argument is likely proposing one of two things: (1) either the AI is using actual pieces of someone’s work (or is close enough that it could be considered theft) which is not what should be happening given the training and if it is we can fairly admit that this is a problem. (2) the AI retains artist work to use, which we know that it doesn’t as once training is complete it is using only itself. Regardless, surgeons aren’t marching in the street because robots are being trained on their images or surgeries. Programmers haven’t unionized to block AI development or refuse to paste their code to GitHub out of fear of AI taking their job. Programmers aren’t writing “poisoned code” to make sure that anything they develop is unusable by data scraping in the future. \n\nBut let’s say that this is theft. Using art to learn is theft because the artists did not consent to it. I have never seen an AI art opponent direct people to avoid SD, DALLE, MJ and to instead use Adobe or ShutterStock or Getty. Despite the fact that these sources used their own proprietary images and pay their artists. The second that an ethical source of AI images is found the goalpost is moved to “No AI art ever” despite the images now being “ethically sourced”\n\n3) Artists are losing their jobs \n\nYes. This sucks. Just like the combine harvester made many farmhands suddenly unemployed, just like a he printing press made individual scribes no longer necessary, low skill art has now been replaced. If the entirety of your art skill was making doodles and the company now has a machine that doodles at 100x the efficiency even with an objectively worse product then your job is going the way of the dodo. The highest level of skill for artists will always remain in demand and companies will continue to need artists to edit/refine/improve the AIs content but increasingly less. But the people who cry out against this have zero moral objection to the idea that truck drivers are soon going to be replaced. They have no complaints that surgery could very soon be done better by a robot. They don’t mind at all that a computer can likely calculate your taxes better than an accountant very soon. The people who object see truck drivers, doctors, and accountants as disposable but not artists. For some reason artists are untouchable. For some reason art is sacred. I find it morally reprehensible that people that are anti-AI are okay with AI replacing manual labor or essentially any other job except their domain. Art isn’t special, it’s not holy, it isn’t sacred. It is a skilled labor just like any other. And just like any skilled labor the democratization of that labor will displace those at the lowest skill levels. That’s not wrong or bad or evil. It means that those people now have to pursue other means of survival and that’s okay. Maybe their art can be better, maybe they can find a niche that suits them with specific clients, or maybe they can expand outwards and discover entirely new forms of art that do not require a corporate sponsor to perform. If anyone can now make an okay landscape in a few keystrokes doesn’t that mean that you can now make landscapes purely for love or enjoyment? Why should the entire world hold itself back for your career when you wouldn’t do the same for anyone else’s? \n\nAnd it’s frankly dumb to hold back a technology only because it harms your career prospects. Otherwise, let’s bring lamplighters and stone throwers back so we can wake up to get to work because machines shouldn’t be waking people up \n\n4) AI art can create objectionable things \n\nYes. With how quickly AI is evolving, very quickly you’ll be able to create a video of president trump and Biden taking turns punching a small child. This is is horrible. It’s is also something technology is 100% capable of doing right now. It’s actually something technology was capable of back in 1902 or even earlier. It’s easier now. So we should advocate for policy that all AI images should have markers that identify them as AI. But attempting to stop this technology will only force it underground where much less savory types will have free run. Making AI harmless with good policy is much better than shutting it down In a Butlerian Jihad. \n \n\nThe camera democratized image creation. It did not make painting obsolete, it simply added another medium to create. The mobile phone democratized the camera and did not make photographers obsolete. AI art has only further increased the ease of access to art. Previously unskilled people can now bring their thoughts and feelings to life in a way they previously could not. It will not make artists obsolete - it will simply give them one more tool",
"date": "2024-02-22",
"id": "1ax3iou",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: AI art is inevitable and opposition to it is based on selfishness or misplaced moral outrage",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1ax3iou/cmv_ai_art_is_inevitable_and_opposition_to_it_is/"
},
{
"author": "jso__",
"body": "I think the key difference in AI art (in terms of IP, at least) is that it doesn't think. It doesn't look at art and consolidate it in a logical and thoughtful manner (as a human would do), it takes in art, combines it in a random manner which it's told is optimal, and spits out a product. By definition, everything which current AI models create are 100% derivative of existing works. They can't create new things.",
"date": "2024-02-22",
"id": "krlcytj",
"parent_id": "1ax3iou",
"score": 7,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Hamza78ch11",
"body": "I don’t think that’s actually true. In so far as making a composite is concerned I don’t believe that’s how diffusion models function but an open to learning more if that’s the case.",
"date": "2024-02-22",
"id": "krld5c5",
"parent_id": "krlcytj",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Hamza78ch11",
"body": "\nLast years was incredible for the advancement of technology via the creation and public release of LLMs (like ChatGPT) and diffusion models like DALL-e, Stable Diffusion, and Midjourney. \nThe release of ChatGPT has widely been met with acclaim and support and while there are very valid criticisms - it seems that LLMs are very palatable to people in a way that the art models were not. However, even before then AI continues to advance steadily. We are getting closer to self driving cars, AI is increasingly being used in medicine, in biology, chemistry, and programming without the moral objections that come with its use in the arts. The opposition to AI Art is founded in not understanding the technology, fear of misuse, and inconsistent moral policing or fear of unemployment and future career prospects. \n\nEssentially, immediately after release the art community was on the defensive about the images generated by these models. Many people voiced moral objections that AI art is “stealing” or that what the model was doing was simply putting together a collage of other artists work. That what it was doing was not “real art.” Most of the people who object to it fundamentally do not understand how it works. \nThe other most common arguments revolve around moral inconsistency or simply holding art to a standard that is inconsistent.\n\n1) AI art is a collage of other pictures \n\nIt isn’t. This one is not even a tiny bit true. Diffusion models work by a neural network wherein the network is trained to recognize that a certain tag has a certain value and attempts to recreate that Diffusion models are a type of generative model that create data similar to the data they were trained on. They do this by gradually adding Gaussian noise to training data, then learning to recover the data by going in the opposite direction. You give it 100 pictures of an apple and then ask it to make a picture of an apple and it gives you a green spherical blob and you say “this is not an apple” and continue forwards until it can pretty confidently give you an apple most of the time. You do this with thousands of concepts until it can pretty convincingly come up with an apple as drawn by Leonardo Davinci on his lunch break. At no point did Leonardo draw an apple and there are no other images for it to stick together. The image is the first of its kind and has not existed prior to this. \n\nBut let’s assume for a moment that it is actually just a collage. Collage is a recognized art form and thus either what the model made is art or collage isn’t.\n\n2) AI steals artists work \n\nOnly if you believe that you are stealing when you look at someone’s work and attempt to get better at it by imitating their style at home and having someone constantly critique how close you are. Since style cannot be considered intellectual property this argument is likely proposing one of two things: (1) either the AI is using actual pieces of someone’s work (or is close enough that it could be considered theft) which is not what should be happening given the training and if it is we can fairly admit that this is a problem. (2) the AI retains artist work to use, which we know that it doesn’t as once training is complete it is using only itself. Regardless, surgeons aren’t marching in the street because robots are being trained on their images or surgeries. Programmers haven’t unionized to block AI development or refuse to paste their code to GitHub out of fear of AI taking their job. Programmers aren’t writing “poisoned code” to make sure that anything they develop is unusable by data scraping in the future. \n\nBut let’s say that this is theft. Using art to learn is theft because the artists did not consent to it. I have never seen an AI art opponent direct people to avoid SD, DALLE, MJ and to instead use Adobe or ShutterStock or Getty. Despite the fact that these sources used their own proprietary images and pay their artists. The second that an ethical source of AI images is found the goalpost is moved to “No AI art ever” despite the images now being “ethically sourced”\n\n3) Artists are losing their jobs \n\nYes. This sucks. Just like the combine harvester made many farmhands suddenly unemployed, just like a he printing press made individual scribes no longer necessary, low skill art has now been replaced. If the entirety of your art skill was making doodles and the company now has a machine that doodles at 100x the efficiency even with an objectively worse product then your job is going the way of the dodo. The highest level of skill for artists will always remain in demand and companies will continue to need artists to edit/refine/improve the AIs content but increasingly less. But the people who cry out against this have zero moral objection to the idea that truck drivers are soon going to be replaced. They have no complaints that surgery could very soon be done better by a robot. They don’t mind at all that a computer can likely calculate your taxes better than an accountant very soon. The people who object see truck drivers, doctors, and accountants as disposable but not artists. For some reason artists are untouchable. For some reason art is sacred. I find it morally reprehensible that people that are anti-AI are okay with AI replacing manual labor or essentially any other job except their domain. Art isn’t special, it’s not holy, it isn’t sacred. It is a skilled labor just like any other. And just like any skilled labor the democratization of that labor will displace those at the lowest skill levels. That’s not wrong or bad or evil. It means that those people now have to pursue other means of survival and that’s okay. Maybe their art can be better, maybe they can find a niche that suits them with specific clients, or maybe they can expand outwards and discover entirely new forms of art that do not require a corporate sponsor to perform. If anyone can now make an okay landscape in a few keystrokes doesn’t that mean that you can now make landscapes purely for love or enjoyment? Why should the entire world hold itself back for your career when you wouldn’t do the same for anyone else’s? \n\nAnd it’s frankly dumb to hold back a technology only because it harms your career prospects. Otherwise, let’s bring lamplighters and stone throwers back so we can wake up to get to work because machines shouldn’t be waking people up \n\n4) AI art can create objectionable things \n\nYes. With how quickly AI is evolving, very quickly you’ll be able to create a video of president trump and Biden taking turns punching a small child. This is is horrible. It’s is also something technology is 100% capable of doing right now. It’s actually something technology was capable of back in 1902 or even earlier. It’s easier now. So we should advocate for policy that all AI images should have markers that identify them as AI. But attempting to stop this technology will only force it underground where much less savory types will have free run. Making AI harmless with good policy is much better than shutting it down In a Butlerian Jihad. \n \n\nThe camera democratized image creation. It did not make painting obsolete, it simply added another medium to create. The mobile phone democratized the camera and did not make photographers obsolete. AI art has only further increased the ease of access to art. Previously unskilled people can now bring their thoughts and feelings to life in a way they previously could not. It will not make artists obsolete - it will simply give them one more tool",
"date": "2024-02-22",
"id": "1ax3iou",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: AI art is inevitable and opposition to it is based on selfishness or misplaced moral outrage",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1ax3iou/cmv_ai_art_is_inevitable_and_opposition_to_it_is/"
},
{
"author": "KokonutMonkey",
"body": "What if I'm a teacher?\n\nIf my job is to instruct learners how to draw, paint, etc., it seems reasonable to reject AI generated submissions. ",
"date": "2024-02-22",
"id": "krlgqxl",
"parent_id": "1ax3iou",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Hamza78ch11",
"body": "Yes, if a student is taking a class to learn how to paint and the submit an AI generated piece they should fail. Just like if I submit a French essay to my Arabic professor I would likely fail. Because both I and your hypothetical student are producing work that is not in line with what was asked of us",
"date": "2024-02-22",
"id": "krlhdxg",
"parent_id": "krlgqxl",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Hamza78ch11",
"body": "\nLast years was incredible for the advancement of technology via the creation and public release of LLMs (like ChatGPT) and diffusion models like DALL-e, Stable Diffusion, and Midjourney. \nThe release of ChatGPT has widely been met with acclaim and support and while there are very valid criticisms - it seems that LLMs are very palatable to people in a way that the art models were not. However, even before then AI continues to advance steadily. We are getting closer to self driving cars, AI is increasingly being used in medicine, in biology, chemistry, and programming without the moral objections that come with its use in the arts. The opposition to AI Art is founded in not understanding the technology, fear of misuse, and inconsistent moral policing or fear of unemployment and future career prospects. \n\nEssentially, immediately after release the art community was on the defensive about the images generated by these models. Many people voiced moral objections that AI art is “stealing” or that what the model was doing was simply putting together a collage of other artists work. That what it was doing was not “real art.” Most of the people who object to it fundamentally do not understand how it works. \nThe other most common arguments revolve around moral inconsistency or simply holding art to a standard that is inconsistent.\n\n1) AI art is a collage of other pictures \n\nIt isn’t. This one is not even a tiny bit true. Diffusion models work by a neural network wherein the network is trained to recognize that a certain tag has a certain value and attempts to recreate that Diffusion models are a type of generative model that create data similar to the data they were trained on. They do this by gradually adding Gaussian noise to training data, then learning to recover the data by going in the opposite direction. You give it 100 pictures of an apple and then ask it to make a picture of an apple and it gives you a green spherical blob and you say “this is not an apple” and continue forwards until it can pretty confidently give you an apple most of the time. You do this with thousands of concepts until it can pretty convincingly come up with an apple as drawn by Leonardo Davinci on his lunch break. At no point did Leonardo draw an apple and there are no other images for it to stick together. The image is the first of its kind and has not existed prior to this. \n\nBut let’s assume for a moment that it is actually just a collage. Collage is a recognized art form and thus either what the model made is art or collage isn’t.\n\n2) AI steals artists work \n\nOnly if you believe that you are stealing when you look at someone’s work and attempt to get better at it by imitating their style at home and having someone constantly critique how close you are. Since style cannot be considered intellectual property this argument is likely proposing one of two things: (1) either the AI is using actual pieces of someone’s work (or is close enough that it could be considered theft) which is not what should be happening given the training and if it is we can fairly admit that this is a problem. (2) the AI retains artist work to use, which we know that it doesn’t as once training is complete it is using only itself. Regardless, surgeons aren’t marching in the street because robots are being trained on their images or surgeries. Programmers haven’t unionized to block AI development or refuse to paste their code to GitHub out of fear of AI taking their job. Programmers aren’t writing “poisoned code” to make sure that anything they develop is unusable by data scraping in the future. \n\nBut let’s say that this is theft. Using art to learn is theft because the artists did not consent to it. I have never seen an AI art opponent direct people to avoid SD, DALLE, MJ and to instead use Adobe or ShutterStock or Getty. Despite the fact that these sources used their own proprietary images and pay their artists. The second that an ethical source of AI images is found the goalpost is moved to “No AI art ever” despite the images now being “ethically sourced”\n\n3) Artists are losing their jobs \n\nYes. This sucks. Just like the combine harvester made many farmhands suddenly unemployed, just like a he printing press made individual scribes no longer necessary, low skill art has now been replaced. If the entirety of your art skill was making doodles and the company now has a machine that doodles at 100x the efficiency even with an objectively worse product then your job is going the way of the dodo. The highest level of skill for artists will always remain in demand and companies will continue to need artists to edit/refine/improve the AIs content but increasingly less. But the people who cry out against this have zero moral objection to the idea that truck drivers are soon going to be replaced. They have no complaints that surgery could very soon be done better by a robot. They don’t mind at all that a computer can likely calculate your taxes better than an accountant very soon. The people who object see truck drivers, doctors, and accountants as disposable but not artists. For some reason artists are untouchable. For some reason art is sacred. I find it morally reprehensible that people that are anti-AI are okay with AI replacing manual labor or essentially any other job except their domain. Art isn’t special, it’s not holy, it isn’t sacred. It is a skilled labor just like any other. And just like any skilled labor the democratization of that labor will displace those at the lowest skill levels. That’s not wrong or bad or evil. It means that those people now have to pursue other means of survival and that’s okay. Maybe their art can be better, maybe they can find a niche that suits them with specific clients, or maybe they can expand outwards and discover entirely new forms of art that do not require a corporate sponsor to perform. If anyone can now make an okay landscape in a few keystrokes doesn’t that mean that you can now make landscapes purely for love or enjoyment? Why should the entire world hold itself back for your career when you wouldn’t do the same for anyone else’s? \n\nAnd it’s frankly dumb to hold back a technology only because it harms your career prospects. Otherwise, let’s bring lamplighters and stone throwers back so we can wake up to get to work because machines shouldn’t be waking people up \n\n4) AI art can create objectionable things \n\nYes. With how quickly AI is evolving, very quickly you’ll be able to create a video of president trump and Biden taking turns punching a small child. This is is horrible. It’s is also something technology is 100% capable of doing right now. It’s actually something technology was capable of back in 1902 or even earlier. It’s easier now. So we should advocate for policy that all AI images should have markers that identify them as AI. But attempting to stop this technology will only force it underground where much less savory types will have free run. Making AI harmless with good policy is much better than shutting it down In a Butlerian Jihad. \n \n\nThe camera democratized image creation. It did not make painting obsolete, it simply added another medium to create. The mobile phone democratized the camera and did not make photographers obsolete. AI art has only further increased the ease of access to art. Previously unskilled people can now bring their thoughts and feelings to life in a way they previously could not. It will not make artists obsolete - it will simply give them one more tool",
"date": "2024-02-22",
"id": "1ax3iou",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: AI art is inevitable and opposition to it is based on selfishness or misplaced moral outrage",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1ax3iou/cmv_ai_art_is_inevitable_and_opposition_to_it_is/"
},
{
"author": "jake_burger",
"body": "To make a camera you don’t have to steal artist’s paintings.\n\nIf AI needs training data and they are going to make money from it they should pay to use it like everyone else has to.",
"date": "2024-02-22",
"id": "krlpcth",
"parent_id": "1ax3iou",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Hamza78ch11",
"body": "Adobe, Getty, and ShutterStock do. So you’re okay with those models, yes?",
"date": "2024-02-22",
"id": "krlq383",
"parent_id": "krlpcth",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Hamza78ch11",
"body": "\nLast years was incredible for the advancement of technology via the creation and public release of LLMs (like ChatGPT) and diffusion models like DALL-e, Stable Diffusion, and Midjourney. \nThe release of ChatGPT has widely been met with acclaim and support and while there are very valid criticisms - it seems that LLMs are very palatable to people in a way that the art models were not. However, even before then AI continues to advance steadily. We are getting closer to self driving cars, AI is increasingly being used in medicine, in biology, chemistry, and programming without the moral objections that come with its use in the arts. The opposition to AI Art is founded in not understanding the technology, fear of misuse, and inconsistent moral policing or fear of unemployment and future career prospects. \n\nEssentially, immediately after release the art community was on the defensive about the images generated by these models. Many people voiced moral objections that AI art is “stealing” or that what the model was doing was simply putting together a collage of other artists work. That what it was doing was not “real art.” Most of the people who object to it fundamentally do not understand how it works. \nThe other most common arguments revolve around moral inconsistency or simply holding art to a standard that is inconsistent.\n\n1) AI art is a collage of other pictures \n\nIt isn’t. This one is not even a tiny bit true. Diffusion models work by a neural network wherein the network is trained to recognize that a certain tag has a certain value and attempts to recreate that Diffusion models are a type of generative model that create data similar to the data they were trained on. They do this by gradually adding Gaussian noise to training data, then learning to recover the data by going in the opposite direction. You give it 100 pictures of an apple and then ask it to make a picture of an apple and it gives you a green spherical blob and you say “this is not an apple” and continue forwards until it can pretty confidently give you an apple most of the time. You do this with thousands of concepts until it can pretty convincingly come up with an apple as drawn by Leonardo Davinci on his lunch break. At no point did Leonardo draw an apple and there are no other images for it to stick together. The image is the first of its kind and has not existed prior to this. \n\nBut let’s assume for a moment that it is actually just a collage. Collage is a recognized art form and thus either what the model made is art or collage isn’t.\n\n2) AI steals artists work \n\nOnly if you believe that you are stealing when you look at someone’s work and attempt to get better at it by imitating their style at home and having someone constantly critique how close you are. Since style cannot be considered intellectual property this argument is likely proposing one of two things: (1) either the AI is using actual pieces of someone’s work (or is close enough that it could be considered theft) which is not what should be happening given the training and if it is we can fairly admit that this is a problem. (2) the AI retains artist work to use, which we know that it doesn’t as once training is complete it is using only itself. Regardless, surgeons aren’t marching in the street because robots are being trained on their images or surgeries. Programmers haven’t unionized to block AI development or refuse to paste their code to GitHub out of fear of AI taking their job. Programmers aren’t writing “poisoned code” to make sure that anything they develop is unusable by data scraping in the future. \n\nBut let’s say that this is theft. Using art to learn is theft because the artists did not consent to it. I have never seen an AI art opponent direct people to avoid SD, DALLE, MJ and to instead use Adobe or ShutterStock or Getty. Despite the fact that these sources used their own proprietary images and pay their artists. The second that an ethical source of AI images is found the goalpost is moved to “No AI art ever” despite the images now being “ethically sourced”\n\n3) Artists are losing their jobs \n\nYes. This sucks. Just like the combine harvester made many farmhands suddenly unemployed, just like a he printing press made individual scribes no longer necessary, low skill art has now been replaced. If the entirety of your art skill was making doodles and the company now has a machine that doodles at 100x the efficiency even with an objectively worse product then your job is going the way of the dodo. The highest level of skill for artists will always remain in demand and companies will continue to need artists to edit/refine/improve the AIs content but increasingly less. But the people who cry out against this have zero moral objection to the idea that truck drivers are soon going to be replaced. They have no complaints that surgery could very soon be done better by a robot. They don’t mind at all that a computer can likely calculate your taxes better than an accountant very soon. The people who object see truck drivers, doctors, and accountants as disposable but not artists. For some reason artists are untouchable. For some reason art is sacred. I find it morally reprehensible that people that are anti-AI are okay with AI replacing manual labor or essentially any other job except their domain. Art isn’t special, it’s not holy, it isn’t sacred. It is a skilled labor just like any other. And just like any skilled labor the democratization of that labor will displace those at the lowest skill levels. That’s not wrong or bad or evil. It means that those people now have to pursue other means of survival and that’s okay. Maybe their art can be better, maybe they can find a niche that suits them with specific clients, or maybe they can expand outwards and discover entirely new forms of art that do not require a corporate sponsor to perform. If anyone can now make an okay landscape in a few keystrokes doesn’t that mean that you can now make landscapes purely for love or enjoyment? Why should the entire world hold itself back for your career when you wouldn’t do the same for anyone else’s? \n\nAnd it’s frankly dumb to hold back a technology only because it harms your career prospects. Otherwise, let’s bring lamplighters and stone throwers back so we can wake up to get to work because machines shouldn’t be waking people up \n\n4) AI art can create objectionable things \n\nYes. With how quickly AI is evolving, very quickly you’ll be able to create a video of president trump and Biden taking turns punching a small child. This is is horrible. It’s is also something technology is 100% capable of doing right now. It’s actually something technology was capable of back in 1902 or even earlier. It’s easier now. So we should advocate for policy that all AI images should have markers that identify them as AI. But attempting to stop this technology will only force it underground where much less savory types will have free run. Making AI harmless with good policy is much better than shutting it down In a Butlerian Jihad. \n \n\nThe camera democratized image creation. It did not make painting obsolete, it simply added another medium to create. The mobile phone democratized the camera and did not make photographers obsolete. AI art has only further increased the ease of access to art. Previously unskilled people can now bring their thoughts and feelings to life in a way they previously could not. It will not make artists obsolete - it will simply give them one more tool",
"date": "2024-02-22",
"id": "1ax3iou",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: AI art is inevitable and opposition to it is based on selfishness or misplaced moral outrage",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1ax3iou/cmv_ai_art_is_inevitable_and_opposition_to_it_is/"
},
{
"author": "Affectionate_Money34",
"body": "I think you misunderstood the AI is a collage.\n\nPrior to the current technique, we had a technique to create an apple by Leondaro that involved some simple mathematical concepts (distance to picture of apple, correlation to picture of Leonardo)\n\nThe current technique does better than the clear mathematical formulation, but don't cheat yourself, there is still a (complex) formulation.\n\nThe argument is that this complexity is significantly smaller than the human experience. As such, if there was never a drawing of Leonardo, AI would have not invented it, but by having AI do almost all of the art you will not get that picture as it will not be invented by humans.\n\nIs human ingenuity needed, and if so, how do we leave room for it?",
"date": "2024-02-22",
"id": "krlr6uf",
"parent_id": "1ax3iou",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Hamza78ch11",
"body": "\nLast years was incredible for the advancement of technology via the creation and public release of LLMs (like ChatGPT) and diffusion models like DALL-e, Stable Diffusion, and Midjourney. \nThe release of ChatGPT has widely been met with acclaim and support and while there are very valid criticisms - it seems that LLMs are very palatable to people in a way that the art models were not. However, even before then AI continues to advance steadily. We are getting closer to self driving cars, AI is increasingly being used in medicine, in biology, chemistry, and programming without the moral objections that come with its use in the arts. The opposition to AI Art is founded in not understanding the technology, fear of misuse, and inconsistent moral policing or fear of unemployment and future career prospects. \n\nEssentially, immediately after release the art community was on the defensive about the images generated by these models. Many people voiced moral objections that AI art is “stealing” or that what the model was doing was simply putting together a collage of other artists work. That what it was doing was not “real art.” Most of the people who object to it fundamentally do not understand how it works. \nThe other most common arguments revolve around moral inconsistency or simply holding art to a standard that is inconsistent.\n\n1) AI art is a collage of other pictures \n\nIt isn’t. This one is not even a tiny bit true. Diffusion models work by a neural network wherein the network is trained to recognize that a certain tag has a certain value and attempts to recreate that Diffusion models are a type of generative model that create data similar to the data they were trained on. They do this by gradually adding Gaussian noise to training data, then learning to recover the data by going in the opposite direction. You give it 100 pictures of an apple and then ask it to make a picture of an apple and it gives you a green spherical blob and you say “this is not an apple” and continue forwards until it can pretty confidently give you an apple most of the time. You do this with thousands of concepts until it can pretty convincingly come up with an apple as drawn by Leonardo Davinci on his lunch break. At no point did Leonardo draw an apple and there are no other images for it to stick together. The image is the first of its kind and has not existed prior to this. \n\nBut let’s assume for a moment that it is actually just a collage. Collage is a recognized art form and thus either what the model made is art or collage isn’t.\n\n2) AI steals artists work \n\nOnly if you believe that you are stealing when you look at someone’s work and attempt to get better at it by imitating their style at home and having someone constantly critique how close you are. Since style cannot be considered intellectual property this argument is likely proposing one of two things: (1) either the AI is using actual pieces of someone’s work (or is close enough that it could be considered theft) which is not what should be happening given the training and if it is we can fairly admit that this is a problem. (2) the AI retains artist work to use, which we know that it doesn’t as once training is complete it is using only itself. Regardless, surgeons aren’t marching in the street because robots are being trained on their images or surgeries. Programmers haven’t unionized to block AI development or refuse to paste their code to GitHub out of fear of AI taking their job. Programmers aren’t writing “poisoned code” to make sure that anything they develop is unusable by data scraping in the future. \n\nBut let’s say that this is theft. Using art to learn is theft because the artists did not consent to it. I have never seen an AI art opponent direct people to avoid SD, DALLE, MJ and to instead use Adobe or ShutterStock or Getty. Despite the fact that these sources used their own proprietary images and pay their artists. The second that an ethical source of AI images is found the goalpost is moved to “No AI art ever” despite the images now being “ethically sourced”\n\n3) Artists are losing their jobs \n\nYes. This sucks. Just like the combine harvester made many farmhands suddenly unemployed, just like a he printing press made individual scribes no longer necessary, low skill art has now been replaced. If the entirety of your art skill was making doodles and the company now has a machine that doodles at 100x the efficiency even with an objectively worse product then your job is going the way of the dodo. The highest level of skill for artists will always remain in demand and companies will continue to need artists to edit/refine/improve the AIs content but increasingly less. But the people who cry out against this have zero moral objection to the idea that truck drivers are soon going to be replaced. They have no complaints that surgery could very soon be done better by a robot. They don’t mind at all that a computer can likely calculate your taxes better than an accountant very soon. The people who object see truck drivers, doctors, and accountants as disposable but not artists. For some reason artists are untouchable. For some reason art is sacred. I find it morally reprehensible that people that are anti-AI are okay with AI replacing manual labor or essentially any other job except their domain. Art isn’t special, it’s not holy, it isn’t sacred. It is a skilled labor just like any other. And just like any skilled labor the democratization of that labor will displace those at the lowest skill levels. That’s not wrong or bad or evil. It means that those people now have to pursue other means of survival and that’s okay. Maybe their art can be better, maybe they can find a niche that suits them with specific clients, or maybe they can expand outwards and discover entirely new forms of art that do not require a corporate sponsor to perform. If anyone can now make an okay landscape in a few keystrokes doesn’t that mean that you can now make landscapes purely for love or enjoyment? Why should the entire world hold itself back for your career when you wouldn’t do the same for anyone else’s? \n\nAnd it’s frankly dumb to hold back a technology only because it harms your career prospects. Otherwise, let’s bring lamplighters and stone throwers back so we can wake up to get to work because machines shouldn’t be waking people up \n\n4) AI art can create objectionable things \n\nYes. With how quickly AI is evolving, very quickly you’ll be able to create a video of president trump and Biden taking turns punching a small child. This is is horrible. It’s is also something technology is 100% capable of doing right now. It’s actually something technology was capable of back in 1902 or even earlier. It’s easier now. So we should advocate for policy that all AI images should have markers that identify them as AI. But attempting to stop this technology will only force it underground where much less savory types will have free run. Making AI harmless with good policy is much better than shutting it down In a Butlerian Jihad. \n \n\nThe camera democratized image creation. It did not make painting obsolete, it simply added another medium to create. The mobile phone democratized the camera and did not make photographers obsolete. AI art has only further increased the ease of access to art. Previously unskilled people can now bring their thoughts and feelings to life in a way they previously could not. It will not make artists obsolete - it will simply give them one more tool",
"date": "2024-02-22",
"id": "1ax3iou",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: AI art is inevitable and opposition to it is based on selfishness or misplaced moral outrage",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1ax3iou/cmv_ai_art_is_inevitable_and_opposition_to_it_is/"
},
{
"author": "dbandroid",
"body": "Fundamentally, AI -generated images are not art and treating them as such is stupid.",
"date": "2024-02-22",
"id": "krlrj85",
"parent_id": "1ax3iou",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Hamza78ch11",
"body": "You’re not really engaging in good faith or actually answering anything that I posited",
"date": "2024-02-22",
"id": "krlrmdk",
"parent_id": "krlrj85",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Hamza78ch11",
"body": "\nLast years was incredible for the advancement of technology via the creation and public release of LLMs (like ChatGPT) and diffusion models like DALL-e, Stable Diffusion, and Midjourney. \nThe release of ChatGPT has widely been met with acclaim and support and while there are very valid criticisms - it seems that LLMs are very palatable to people in a way that the art models were not. However, even before then AI continues to advance steadily. We are getting closer to self driving cars, AI is increasingly being used in medicine, in biology, chemistry, and programming without the moral objections that come with its use in the arts. The opposition to AI Art is founded in not understanding the technology, fear of misuse, and inconsistent moral policing or fear of unemployment and future career prospects. \n\nEssentially, immediately after release the art community was on the defensive about the images generated by these models. Many people voiced moral objections that AI art is “stealing” or that what the model was doing was simply putting together a collage of other artists work. That what it was doing was not “real art.” Most of the people who object to it fundamentally do not understand how it works. \nThe other most common arguments revolve around moral inconsistency or simply holding art to a standard that is inconsistent.\n\n1) AI art is a collage of other pictures \n\nIt isn’t. This one is not even a tiny bit true. Diffusion models work by a neural network wherein the network is trained to recognize that a certain tag has a certain value and attempts to recreate that Diffusion models are a type of generative model that create data similar to the data they were trained on. They do this by gradually adding Gaussian noise to training data, then learning to recover the data by going in the opposite direction. You give it 100 pictures of an apple and then ask it to make a picture of an apple and it gives you a green spherical blob and you say “this is not an apple” and continue forwards until it can pretty confidently give you an apple most of the time. You do this with thousands of concepts until it can pretty convincingly come up with an apple as drawn by Leonardo Davinci on his lunch break. At no point did Leonardo draw an apple and there are no other images for it to stick together. The image is the first of its kind and has not existed prior to this. \n\nBut let’s assume for a moment that it is actually just a collage. Collage is a recognized art form and thus either what the model made is art or collage isn’t.\n\n2) AI steals artists work \n\nOnly if you believe that you are stealing when you look at someone’s work and attempt to get better at it by imitating their style at home and having someone constantly critique how close you are. Since style cannot be considered intellectual property this argument is likely proposing one of two things: (1) either the AI is using actual pieces of someone’s work (or is close enough that it could be considered theft) which is not what should be happening given the training and if it is we can fairly admit that this is a problem. (2) the AI retains artist work to use, which we know that it doesn’t as once training is complete it is using only itself. Regardless, surgeons aren’t marching in the street because robots are being trained on their images or surgeries. Programmers haven’t unionized to block AI development or refuse to paste their code to GitHub out of fear of AI taking their job. Programmers aren’t writing “poisoned code” to make sure that anything they develop is unusable by data scraping in the future. \n\nBut let’s say that this is theft. Using art to learn is theft because the artists did not consent to it. I have never seen an AI art opponent direct people to avoid SD, DALLE, MJ and to instead use Adobe or ShutterStock or Getty. Despite the fact that these sources used their own proprietary images and pay their artists. The second that an ethical source of AI images is found the goalpost is moved to “No AI art ever” despite the images now being “ethically sourced”\n\n3) Artists are losing their jobs \n\nYes. This sucks. Just like the combine harvester made many farmhands suddenly unemployed, just like a he printing press made individual scribes no longer necessary, low skill art has now been replaced. If the entirety of your art skill was making doodles and the company now has a machine that doodles at 100x the efficiency even with an objectively worse product then your job is going the way of the dodo. The highest level of skill for artists will always remain in demand and companies will continue to need artists to edit/refine/improve the AIs content but increasingly less. But the people who cry out against this have zero moral objection to the idea that truck drivers are soon going to be replaced. They have no complaints that surgery could very soon be done better by a robot. They don’t mind at all that a computer can likely calculate your taxes better than an accountant very soon. The people who object see truck drivers, doctors, and accountants as disposable but not artists. For some reason artists are untouchable. For some reason art is sacred. I find it morally reprehensible that people that are anti-AI are okay with AI replacing manual labor or essentially any other job except their domain. Art isn’t special, it’s not holy, it isn’t sacred. It is a skilled labor just like any other. And just like any skilled labor the democratization of that labor will displace those at the lowest skill levels. That’s not wrong or bad or evil. It means that those people now have to pursue other means of survival and that’s okay. Maybe their art can be better, maybe they can find a niche that suits them with specific clients, or maybe they can expand outwards and discover entirely new forms of art that do not require a corporate sponsor to perform. If anyone can now make an okay landscape in a few keystrokes doesn’t that mean that you can now make landscapes purely for love or enjoyment? Why should the entire world hold itself back for your career when you wouldn’t do the same for anyone else’s? \n\nAnd it’s frankly dumb to hold back a technology only because it harms your career prospects. Otherwise, let’s bring lamplighters and stone throwers back so we can wake up to get to work because machines shouldn’t be waking people up \n\n4) AI art can create objectionable things \n\nYes. With how quickly AI is evolving, very quickly you’ll be able to create a video of president trump and Biden taking turns punching a small child. This is is horrible. It’s is also something technology is 100% capable of doing right now. It’s actually something technology was capable of back in 1902 or even earlier. It’s easier now. So we should advocate for policy that all AI images should have markers that identify them as AI. But attempting to stop this technology will only force it underground where much less savory types will have free run. Making AI harmless with good policy is much better than shutting it down In a Butlerian Jihad. \n \n\nThe camera democratized image creation. It did not make painting obsolete, it simply added another medium to create. The mobile phone democratized the camera and did not make photographers obsolete. AI art has only further increased the ease of access to art. Previously unskilled people can now bring their thoughts and feelings to life in a way they previously could not. It will not make artists obsolete - it will simply give them one more tool",
"date": "2024-02-22",
"id": "1ax3iou",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: AI art is inevitable and opposition to it is based on selfishness or misplaced moral outrage",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1ax3iou/cmv_ai_art_is_inevitable_and_opposition_to_it_is/"
},
{
"author": "Siukslinis_acc",
"body": "I think deep down it is an existential crysis.\n\n>You know, the more I think about it, the more I believe that no-one is actually worried about AIs taking over the world or anything like that, no matter what they say. What they're really worried about is that someone might prove, once and for all, that consciousness can arise from matter. And I kind of understand why they find it so terrifying. If we can create a sentient being, where does that leave the soul? Without mystery, how can we see ourselves as anything other than machines? And if we are machines, what hope do we have that death is not the end?\n\n>What really scares people is not the artificial intelligence in the computer, but the \"natural\" intelligence they see in the mirror.\n\nWhen my friend and I talked about ai art one of their concerns was that they will not know if it was made by a human or not. Stuff being made by human is very important to them. They are making music and for them art is what makes one human. They do have a sort of an identity problem and I think art is making them feel human, so if art is no longer an unique human thing, they might lose their identity of being a human.\n\nWhile I am on a bit of a different philosophical mindset and don't see humans as being something unique and thus it doesn't bother me that the things we saw as uniquely human is no longer unique to humans. I don't care if I have a conversation with a human or an AI. Currently if I want a 100% human conversation, i go outside and interact irl with other humans.\n\nI remember people talking that art is an uniquely human thing. That art is what makes us human. So if a computer can do what is ascribed as uniquely human thing to do, then humans will no longer feel special.",
"date": "2024-02-22",
"id": "krltrze",
"parent_id": "1ax3iou",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Hamza78ch11",
"body": "\nLast years was incredible for the advancement of technology via the creation and public release of LLMs (like ChatGPT) and diffusion models like DALL-e, Stable Diffusion, and Midjourney. \nThe release of ChatGPT has widely been met with acclaim and support and while there are very valid criticisms - it seems that LLMs are very palatable to people in a way that the art models were not. However, even before then AI continues to advance steadily. We are getting closer to self driving cars, AI is increasingly being used in medicine, in biology, chemistry, and programming without the moral objections that come with its use in the arts. The opposition to AI Art is founded in not understanding the technology, fear of misuse, and inconsistent moral policing or fear of unemployment and future career prospects. \n\nEssentially, immediately after release the art community was on the defensive about the images generated by these models. Many people voiced moral objections that AI art is “stealing” or that what the model was doing was simply putting together a collage of other artists work. That what it was doing was not “real art.” Most of the people who object to it fundamentally do not understand how it works. \nThe other most common arguments revolve around moral inconsistency or simply holding art to a standard that is inconsistent.\n\n1) AI art is a collage of other pictures \n\nIt isn’t. This one is not even a tiny bit true. Diffusion models work by a neural network wherein the network is trained to recognize that a certain tag has a certain value and attempts to recreate that Diffusion models are a type of generative model that create data similar to the data they were trained on. They do this by gradually adding Gaussian noise to training data, then learning to recover the data by going in the opposite direction. You give it 100 pictures of an apple and then ask it to make a picture of an apple and it gives you a green spherical blob and you say “this is not an apple” and continue forwards until it can pretty confidently give you an apple most of the time. You do this with thousands of concepts until it can pretty convincingly come up with an apple as drawn by Leonardo Davinci on his lunch break. At no point did Leonardo draw an apple and there are no other images for it to stick together. The image is the first of its kind and has not existed prior to this. \n\nBut let’s assume for a moment that it is actually just a collage. Collage is a recognized art form and thus either what the model made is art or collage isn’t.\n\n2) AI steals artists work \n\nOnly if you believe that you are stealing when you look at someone’s work and attempt to get better at it by imitating their style at home and having someone constantly critique how close you are. Since style cannot be considered intellectual property this argument is likely proposing one of two things: (1) either the AI is using actual pieces of someone’s work (or is close enough that it could be considered theft) which is not what should be happening given the training and if it is we can fairly admit that this is a problem. (2) the AI retains artist work to use, which we know that it doesn’t as once training is complete it is using only itself. Regardless, surgeons aren’t marching in the street because robots are being trained on their images or surgeries. Programmers haven’t unionized to block AI development or refuse to paste their code to GitHub out of fear of AI taking their job. Programmers aren’t writing “poisoned code” to make sure that anything they develop is unusable by data scraping in the future. \n\nBut let’s say that this is theft. Using art to learn is theft because the artists did not consent to it. I have never seen an AI art opponent direct people to avoid SD, DALLE, MJ and to instead use Adobe or ShutterStock or Getty. Despite the fact that these sources used their own proprietary images and pay their artists. The second that an ethical source of AI images is found the goalpost is moved to “No AI art ever” despite the images now being “ethically sourced”\n\n3) Artists are losing their jobs \n\nYes. This sucks. Just like the combine harvester made many farmhands suddenly unemployed, just like a he printing press made individual scribes no longer necessary, low skill art has now been replaced. If the entirety of your art skill was making doodles and the company now has a machine that doodles at 100x the efficiency even with an objectively worse product then your job is going the way of the dodo. The highest level of skill for artists will always remain in demand and companies will continue to need artists to edit/refine/improve the AIs content but increasingly less. But the people who cry out against this have zero moral objection to the idea that truck drivers are soon going to be replaced. They have no complaints that surgery could very soon be done better by a robot. They don’t mind at all that a computer can likely calculate your taxes better than an accountant very soon. The people who object see truck drivers, doctors, and accountants as disposable but not artists. For some reason artists are untouchable. For some reason art is sacred. I find it morally reprehensible that people that are anti-AI are okay with AI replacing manual labor or essentially any other job except their domain. Art isn’t special, it’s not holy, it isn’t sacred. It is a skilled labor just like any other. And just like any skilled labor the democratization of that labor will displace those at the lowest skill levels. That’s not wrong or bad or evil. It means that those people now have to pursue other means of survival and that’s okay. Maybe their art can be better, maybe they can find a niche that suits them with specific clients, or maybe they can expand outwards and discover entirely new forms of art that do not require a corporate sponsor to perform. If anyone can now make an okay landscape in a few keystrokes doesn’t that mean that you can now make landscapes purely for love or enjoyment? Why should the entire world hold itself back for your career when you wouldn’t do the same for anyone else’s? \n\nAnd it’s frankly dumb to hold back a technology only because it harms your career prospects. Otherwise, let’s bring lamplighters and stone throwers back so we can wake up to get to work because machines shouldn’t be waking people up \n\n4) AI art can create objectionable things \n\nYes. With how quickly AI is evolving, very quickly you’ll be able to create a video of president trump and Biden taking turns punching a small child. This is is horrible. It’s is also something technology is 100% capable of doing right now. It’s actually something technology was capable of back in 1902 or even earlier. It’s easier now. So we should advocate for policy that all AI images should have markers that identify them as AI. But attempting to stop this technology will only force it underground where much less savory types will have free run. Making AI harmless with good policy is much better than shutting it down In a Butlerian Jihad. \n \n\nThe camera democratized image creation. It did not make painting obsolete, it simply added another medium to create. The mobile phone democratized the camera and did not make photographers obsolete. AI art has only further increased the ease of access to art. Previously unskilled people can now bring their thoughts and feelings to life in a way they previously could not. It will not make artists obsolete - it will simply give them one more tool",
"date": "2024-02-22",
"id": "1ax3iou",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: AI art is inevitable and opposition to it is based on selfishness or misplaced moral outrage",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1ax3iou/cmv_ai_art_is_inevitable_and_opposition_to_it_is/"
},
{
"author": "VertigoOne",
"body": ">Only if you believe that you are stealing when you look at someone’s work and attempt to get better at it by imitating their style at home and having someone constantly critique how close you are\n\nSee, this is the issue.\n\nWhen people make art, they accept the natural possibility of this because of the nature of art. Art is meant to be viewed by humans, so by extension there is no meaningful way to say \"do not be inspired by my work to create your own\" etc. We accept that by putting your art out into the world, that is an inevitablity.\n\nNo one accepted that it was \"inevitable\" that the art would be fed into a generative AI art machine and used as a tool for a machine to make more art.\n\nYou cannot infer from the fact that \"People are inspired by art to make more art\" that therefore \"Art can be used as a model for a machine to make more art\".\n\nArtists did not consent to that.",
"date": "2024-02-22",
"id": "krlzyft",
"parent_id": "1ax3iou",
"score": 5,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Hamza78ch11",
"body": "\nLast years was incredible for the advancement of technology via the creation and public release of LLMs (like ChatGPT) and diffusion models like DALL-e, Stable Diffusion, and Midjourney. \nThe release of ChatGPT has widely been met with acclaim and support and while there are very valid criticisms - it seems that LLMs are very palatable to people in a way that the art models were not. However, even before then AI continues to advance steadily. We are getting closer to self driving cars, AI is increasingly being used in medicine, in biology, chemistry, and programming without the moral objections that come with its use in the arts. The opposition to AI Art is founded in not understanding the technology, fear of misuse, and inconsistent moral policing or fear of unemployment and future career prospects. \n\nEssentially, immediately after release the art community was on the defensive about the images generated by these models. Many people voiced moral objections that AI art is “stealing” or that what the model was doing was simply putting together a collage of other artists work. That what it was doing was not “real art.” Most of the people who object to it fundamentally do not understand how it works. \nThe other most common arguments revolve around moral inconsistency or simply holding art to a standard that is inconsistent.\n\n1) AI art is a collage of other pictures \n\nIt isn’t. This one is not even a tiny bit true. Diffusion models work by a neural network wherein the network is trained to recognize that a certain tag has a certain value and attempts to recreate that Diffusion models are a type of generative model that create data similar to the data they were trained on. They do this by gradually adding Gaussian noise to training data, then learning to recover the data by going in the opposite direction. You give it 100 pictures of an apple and then ask it to make a picture of an apple and it gives you a green spherical blob and you say “this is not an apple” and continue forwards until it can pretty confidently give you an apple most of the time. You do this with thousands of concepts until it can pretty convincingly come up with an apple as drawn by Leonardo Davinci on his lunch break. At no point did Leonardo draw an apple and there are no other images for it to stick together. The image is the first of its kind and has not existed prior to this. \n\nBut let’s assume for a moment that it is actually just a collage. Collage is a recognized art form and thus either what the model made is art or collage isn’t.\n\n2) AI steals artists work \n\nOnly if you believe that you are stealing when you look at someone’s work and attempt to get better at it by imitating their style at home and having someone constantly critique how close you are. Since style cannot be considered intellectual property this argument is likely proposing one of two things: (1) either the AI is using actual pieces of someone’s work (or is close enough that it could be considered theft) which is not what should be happening given the training and if it is we can fairly admit that this is a problem. (2) the AI retains artist work to use, which we know that it doesn’t as once training is complete it is using only itself. Regardless, surgeons aren’t marching in the street because robots are being trained on their images or surgeries. Programmers haven’t unionized to block AI development or refuse to paste their code to GitHub out of fear of AI taking their job. Programmers aren’t writing “poisoned code” to make sure that anything they develop is unusable by data scraping in the future. \n\nBut let’s say that this is theft. Using art to learn is theft because the artists did not consent to it. I have never seen an AI art opponent direct people to avoid SD, DALLE, MJ and to instead use Adobe or ShutterStock or Getty. Despite the fact that these sources used their own proprietary images and pay their artists. The second that an ethical source of AI images is found the goalpost is moved to “No AI art ever” despite the images now being “ethically sourced”\n\n3) Artists are losing their jobs \n\nYes. This sucks. Just like the combine harvester made many farmhands suddenly unemployed, just like a he printing press made individual scribes no longer necessary, low skill art has now been replaced. If the entirety of your art skill was making doodles and the company now has a machine that doodles at 100x the efficiency even with an objectively worse product then your job is going the way of the dodo. The highest level of skill for artists will always remain in demand and companies will continue to need artists to edit/refine/improve the AIs content but increasingly less. But the people who cry out against this have zero moral objection to the idea that truck drivers are soon going to be replaced. They have no complaints that surgery could very soon be done better by a robot. They don’t mind at all that a computer can likely calculate your taxes better than an accountant very soon. The people who object see truck drivers, doctors, and accountants as disposable but not artists. For some reason artists are untouchable. For some reason art is sacred. I find it morally reprehensible that people that are anti-AI are okay with AI replacing manual labor or essentially any other job except their domain. Art isn’t special, it’s not holy, it isn’t sacred. It is a skilled labor just like any other. And just like any skilled labor the democratization of that labor will displace those at the lowest skill levels. That’s not wrong or bad or evil. It means that those people now have to pursue other means of survival and that’s okay. Maybe their art can be better, maybe they can find a niche that suits them with specific clients, or maybe they can expand outwards and discover entirely new forms of art that do not require a corporate sponsor to perform. If anyone can now make an okay landscape in a few keystrokes doesn’t that mean that you can now make landscapes purely for love or enjoyment? Why should the entire world hold itself back for your career when you wouldn’t do the same for anyone else’s? \n\nAnd it’s frankly dumb to hold back a technology only because it harms your career prospects. Otherwise, let’s bring lamplighters and stone throwers back so we can wake up to get to work because machines shouldn’t be waking people up \n\n4) AI art can create objectionable things \n\nYes. With how quickly AI is evolving, very quickly you’ll be able to create a video of president trump and Biden taking turns punching a small child. This is is horrible. It’s is also something technology is 100% capable of doing right now. It’s actually something technology was capable of back in 1902 or even earlier. It’s easier now. So we should advocate for policy that all AI images should have markers that identify them as AI. But attempting to stop this technology will only force it underground where much less savory types will have free run. Making AI harmless with good policy is much better than shutting it down In a Butlerian Jihad. \n \n\nThe camera democratized image creation. It did not make painting obsolete, it simply added another medium to create. The mobile phone democratized the camera and did not make photographers obsolete. AI art has only further increased the ease of access to art. Previously unskilled people can now bring their thoughts and feelings to life in a way they previously could not. It will not make artists obsolete - it will simply give them one more tool",
"date": "2024-02-22",
"id": "1ax3iou",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: AI art is inevitable and opposition to it is based on selfishness or misplaced moral outrage",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1ax3iou/cmv_ai_art_is_inevitable_and_opposition_to_it_is/"
},
{
"author": "deathbrusher",
"body": "I feel like AI art is much like taking credit for the meal when all you did was order from the menu.\n\nAI removes the human journey from art all in the cause of image generation.\n\nThe struggle and effort are the key aspects of why art is important because the process is what counts. AI removes it in favor of listening to what you're writing and virtually guessing what it should look like based upon art of which was fed to it, mostly involuntarily.",
"date": "2024-02-22",
"id": "krm3nc6",
"parent_id": "1ax3iou",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Hamza78ch11",
"body": "\nLast years was incredible for the advancement of technology via the creation and public release of LLMs (like ChatGPT) and diffusion models like DALL-e, Stable Diffusion, and Midjourney. \nThe release of ChatGPT has widely been met with acclaim and support and while there are very valid criticisms - it seems that LLMs are very palatable to people in a way that the art models were not. However, even before then AI continues to advance steadily. We are getting closer to self driving cars, AI is increasingly being used in medicine, in biology, chemistry, and programming without the moral objections that come with its use in the arts. The opposition to AI Art is founded in not understanding the technology, fear of misuse, and inconsistent moral policing or fear of unemployment and future career prospects. \n\nEssentially, immediately after release the art community was on the defensive about the images generated by these models. Many people voiced moral objections that AI art is “stealing” or that what the model was doing was simply putting together a collage of other artists work. That what it was doing was not “real art.” Most of the people who object to it fundamentally do not understand how it works. \nThe other most common arguments revolve around moral inconsistency or simply holding art to a standard that is inconsistent.\n\n1) AI art is a collage of other pictures \n\nIt isn’t. This one is not even a tiny bit true. Diffusion models work by a neural network wherein the network is trained to recognize that a certain tag has a certain value and attempts to recreate that Diffusion models are a type of generative model that create data similar to the data they were trained on. They do this by gradually adding Gaussian noise to training data, then learning to recover the data by going in the opposite direction. You give it 100 pictures of an apple and then ask it to make a picture of an apple and it gives you a green spherical blob and you say “this is not an apple” and continue forwards until it can pretty confidently give you an apple most of the time. You do this with thousands of concepts until it can pretty convincingly come up with an apple as drawn by Leonardo Davinci on his lunch break. At no point did Leonardo draw an apple and there are no other images for it to stick together. The image is the first of its kind and has not existed prior to this. \n\nBut let’s assume for a moment that it is actually just a collage. Collage is a recognized art form and thus either what the model made is art or collage isn’t.\n\n2) AI steals artists work \n\nOnly if you believe that you are stealing when you look at someone’s work and attempt to get better at it by imitating their style at home and having someone constantly critique how close you are. Since style cannot be considered intellectual property this argument is likely proposing one of two things: (1) either the AI is using actual pieces of someone’s work (or is close enough that it could be considered theft) which is not what should be happening given the training and if it is we can fairly admit that this is a problem. (2) the AI retains artist work to use, which we know that it doesn’t as once training is complete it is using only itself. Regardless, surgeons aren’t marching in the street because robots are being trained on their images or surgeries. Programmers haven’t unionized to block AI development or refuse to paste their code to GitHub out of fear of AI taking their job. Programmers aren’t writing “poisoned code” to make sure that anything they develop is unusable by data scraping in the future. \n\nBut let’s say that this is theft. Using art to learn is theft because the artists did not consent to it. I have never seen an AI art opponent direct people to avoid SD, DALLE, MJ and to instead use Adobe or ShutterStock or Getty. Despite the fact that these sources used their own proprietary images and pay their artists. The second that an ethical source of AI images is found the goalpost is moved to “No AI art ever” despite the images now being “ethically sourced”\n\n3) Artists are losing their jobs \n\nYes. This sucks. Just like the combine harvester made many farmhands suddenly unemployed, just like a he printing press made individual scribes no longer necessary, low skill art has now been replaced. If the entirety of your art skill was making doodles and the company now has a machine that doodles at 100x the efficiency even with an objectively worse product then your job is going the way of the dodo. The highest level of skill for artists will always remain in demand and companies will continue to need artists to edit/refine/improve the AIs content but increasingly less. But the people who cry out against this have zero moral objection to the idea that truck drivers are soon going to be replaced. They have no complaints that surgery could very soon be done better by a robot. They don’t mind at all that a computer can likely calculate your taxes better than an accountant very soon. The people who object see truck drivers, doctors, and accountants as disposable but not artists. For some reason artists are untouchable. For some reason art is sacred. I find it morally reprehensible that people that are anti-AI are okay with AI replacing manual labor or essentially any other job except their domain. Art isn’t special, it’s not holy, it isn’t sacred. It is a skilled labor just like any other. And just like any skilled labor the democratization of that labor will displace those at the lowest skill levels. That’s not wrong or bad or evil. It means that those people now have to pursue other means of survival and that’s okay. Maybe their art can be better, maybe they can find a niche that suits them with specific clients, or maybe they can expand outwards and discover entirely new forms of art that do not require a corporate sponsor to perform. If anyone can now make an okay landscape in a few keystrokes doesn’t that mean that you can now make landscapes purely for love or enjoyment? Why should the entire world hold itself back for your career when you wouldn’t do the same for anyone else’s? \n\nAnd it’s frankly dumb to hold back a technology only because it harms your career prospects. Otherwise, let’s bring lamplighters and stone throwers back so we can wake up to get to work because machines shouldn’t be waking people up \n\n4) AI art can create objectionable things \n\nYes. With how quickly AI is evolving, very quickly you’ll be able to create a video of president trump and Biden taking turns punching a small child. This is is horrible. It’s is also something technology is 100% capable of doing right now. It’s actually something technology was capable of back in 1902 or even earlier. It’s easier now. So we should advocate for policy that all AI images should have markers that identify them as AI. But attempting to stop this technology will only force it underground where much less savory types will have free run. Making AI harmless with good policy is much better than shutting it down In a Butlerian Jihad. \n \n\nThe camera democratized image creation. It did not make painting obsolete, it simply added another medium to create. The mobile phone democratized the camera and did not make photographers obsolete. AI art has only further increased the ease of access to art. Previously unskilled people can now bring their thoughts and feelings to life in a way they previously could not. It will not make artists obsolete - it will simply give them one more tool",
"date": "2024-02-22",
"id": "1ax3iou",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: AI art is inevitable and opposition to it is based on selfishness or misplaced moral outrage",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1ax3iou/cmv_ai_art_is_inevitable_and_opposition_to_it_is/"
},
{
"author": "ExcitingPotatoes",
"body": "You make good points but I think what's missing is the perspective of non-commercial artists and what value art offers to a society beyond its commercial applications.\n\nOutside of a corporate or commercial context, AI art is solving a problem that doesn't exist -- art isn't something that *needs* to be optimized or automated. Great art works are considered great because they're an expression and reflection of the human experience and human intention. That experience is not something that an algorithm can have, no matter how technically proficient and precise its output may be. \n\nI have no doubt an AI could generate something that could fool most into thinking it was made by a human. But the question is, why would you want that? Making art, even if you aren't trying to make something great, can be a blast and the process of creation itself can be one of the most fulfilling experiences available to us as humans. Trying to make an AI do it \"better\" makes no sense. A robot could probably play video games better than us, but what would be the point? Just to watch the robot have fun for you?\n\n>For some reason artists are untouchable. \n\nWell, art *is* categorically different than something like truck driving, for example, because it's more than just a job for many. People generally don't drive big rigs for hours a day just for recreational purposes. But people with a passion for art want to do it regardless of whether they earn a paycheck because it's fulfilling and it's a healthy outlet. I think creating a cultural attitude where aspiring artists are told they don't need to learn anything other than how to enter prompts into an AI effectively takes away the joy of creation.\n\nThe only reasonable purpose I could see for this kind of technology is in the corporate world or advertising, like stock images or web page backgrounds for example, or in upscaling old media.",
"date": "2024-02-22",
"id": "krnjzbm",
"parent_id": "1ax3iou",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Hamza78ch11",
"body": "\nLast years was incredible for the advancement of technology via the creation and public release of LLMs (like ChatGPT) and diffusion models like DALL-e, Stable Diffusion, and Midjourney. \nThe release of ChatGPT has widely been met with acclaim and support and while there are very valid criticisms - it seems that LLMs are very palatable to people in a way that the art models were not. However, even before then AI continues to advance steadily. We are getting closer to self driving cars, AI is increasingly being used in medicine, in biology, chemistry, and programming without the moral objections that come with its use in the arts. The opposition to AI Art is founded in not understanding the technology, fear of misuse, and inconsistent moral policing or fear of unemployment and future career prospects. \n\nEssentially, immediately after release the art community was on the defensive about the images generated by these models. Many people voiced moral objections that AI art is “stealing” or that what the model was doing was simply putting together a collage of other artists work. That what it was doing was not “real art.” Most of the people who object to it fundamentally do not understand how it works. \nThe other most common arguments revolve around moral inconsistency or simply holding art to a standard that is inconsistent.\n\n1) AI art is a collage of other pictures \n\nIt isn’t. This one is not even a tiny bit true. Diffusion models work by a neural network wherein the network is trained to recognize that a certain tag has a certain value and attempts to recreate that Diffusion models are a type of generative model that create data similar to the data they were trained on. They do this by gradually adding Gaussian noise to training data, then learning to recover the data by going in the opposite direction. You give it 100 pictures of an apple and then ask it to make a picture of an apple and it gives you a green spherical blob and you say “this is not an apple” and continue forwards until it can pretty confidently give you an apple most of the time. You do this with thousands of concepts until it can pretty convincingly come up with an apple as drawn by Leonardo Davinci on his lunch break. At no point did Leonardo draw an apple and there are no other images for it to stick together. The image is the first of its kind and has not existed prior to this. \n\nBut let’s assume for a moment that it is actually just a collage. Collage is a recognized art form and thus either what the model made is art or collage isn’t.\n\n2) AI steals artists work \n\nOnly if you believe that you are stealing when you look at someone’s work and attempt to get better at it by imitating their style at home and having someone constantly critique how close you are. Since style cannot be considered intellectual property this argument is likely proposing one of two things: (1) either the AI is using actual pieces of someone’s work (or is close enough that it could be considered theft) which is not what should be happening given the training and if it is we can fairly admit that this is a problem. (2) the AI retains artist work to use, which we know that it doesn’t as once training is complete it is using only itself. Regardless, surgeons aren’t marching in the street because robots are being trained on their images or surgeries. Programmers haven’t unionized to block AI development or refuse to paste their code to GitHub out of fear of AI taking their job. Programmers aren’t writing “poisoned code” to make sure that anything they develop is unusable by data scraping in the future. \n\nBut let’s say that this is theft. Using art to learn is theft because the artists did not consent to it. I have never seen an AI art opponent direct people to avoid SD, DALLE, MJ and to instead use Adobe or ShutterStock or Getty. Despite the fact that these sources used their own proprietary images and pay their artists. The second that an ethical source of AI images is found the goalpost is moved to “No AI art ever” despite the images now being “ethically sourced”\n\n3) Artists are losing their jobs \n\nYes. This sucks. Just like the combine harvester made many farmhands suddenly unemployed, just like a he printing press made individual scribes no longer necessary, low skill art has now been replaced. If the entirety of your art skill was making doodles and the company now has a machine that doodles at 100x the efficiency even with an objectively worse product then your job is going the way of the dodo. The highest level of skill for artists will always remain in demand and companies will continue to need artists to edit/refine/improve the AIs content but increasingly less. But the people who cry out against this have zero moral objection to the idea that truck drivers are soon going to be replaced. They have no complaints that surgery could very soon be done better by a robot. They don’t mind at all that a computer can likely calculate your taxes better than an accountant very soon. The people who object see truck drivers, doctors, and accountants as disposable but not artists. For some reason artists are untouchable. For some reason art is sacred. I find it morally reprehensible that people that are anti-AI are okay with AI replacing manual labor or essentially any other job except their domain. Art isn’t special, it’s not holy, it isn’t sacred. It is a skilled labor just like any other. And just like any skilled labor the democratization of that labor will displace those at the lowest skill levels. That’s not wrong or bad or evil. It means that those people now have to pursue other means of survival and that’s okay. Maybe their art can be better, maybe they can find a niche that suits them with specific clients, or maybe they can expand outwards and discover entirely new forms of art that do not require a corporate sponsor to perform. If anyone can now make an okay landscape in a few keystrokes doesn’t that mean that you can now make landscapes purely for love or enjoyment? Why should the entire world hold itself back for your career when you wouldn’t do the same for anyone else’s? \n\nAnd it’s frankly dumb to hold back a technology only because it harms your career prospects. Otherwise, let’s bring lamplighters and stone throwers back so we can wake up to get to work because machines shouldn’t be waking people up \n\n4) AI art can create objectionable things \n\nYes. With how quickly AI is evolving, very quickly you’ll be able to create a video of president trump and Biden taking turns punching a small child. This is is horrible. It’s is also something technology is 100% capable of doing right now. It’s actually something technology was capable of back in 1902 or even earlier. It’s easier now. So we should advocate for policy that all AI images should have markers that identify them as AI. But attempting to stop this technology will only force it underground where much less savory types will have free run. Making AI harmless with good policy is much better than shutting it down In a Butlerian Jihad. \n \n\nThe camera democratized image creation. It did not make painting obsolete, it simply added another medium to create. The mobile phone democratized the camera and did not make photographers obsolete. AI art has only further increased the ease of access to art. Previously unskilled people can now bring their thoughts and feelings to life in a way they previously could not. It will not make artists obsolete - it will simply give them one more tool",
"date": "2024-02-22",
"id": "1ax3iou",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: AI art is inevitable and opposition to it is based on selfishness or misplaced moral outrage",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1ax3iou/cmv_ai_art_is_inevitable_and_opposition_to_it_is/"
},
{
"author": "atxarchitect91",
"body": "AI will be a tool just like everything else but your defense of it seems more like you like using it and disparage people with the actual talent and don’t find them of value or understand art all that much. It is a degradation of culture by any estimation and your defense of it doesn’t understand how it will inevitably lead to people like yourself who over value technology in lieu of actual human-based skills and hard work.",
"date": "2024-02-22",
"id": "krpvd83",
"parent_id": "1ax3iou",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Hamza78ch11",
"body": "\nLast years was incredible for the advancement of technology via the creation and public release of LLMs (like ChatGPT) and diffusion models like DALL-e, Stable Diffusion, and Midjourney. \nThe release of ChatGPT has widely been met with acclaim and support and while there are very valid criticisms - it seems that LLMs are very palatable to people in a way that the art models were not. However, even before then AI continues to advance steadily. We are getting closer to self driving cars, AI is increasingly being used in medicine, in biology, chemistry, and programming without the moral objections that come with its use in the arts. The opposition to AI Art is founded in not understanding the technology, fear of misuse, and inconsistent moral policing or fear of unemployment and future career prospects. \n\nEssentially, immediately after release the art community was on the defensive about the images generated by these models. Many people voiced moral objections that AI art is “stealing” or that what the model was doing was simply putting together a collage of other artists work. That what it was doing was not “real art.” Most of the people who object to it fundamentally do not understand how it works. \nThe other most common arguments revolve around moral inconsistency or simply holding art to a standard that is inconsistent.\n\n1) AI art is a collage of other pictures \n\nIt isn’t. This one is not even a tiny bit true. Diffusion models work by a neural network wherein the network is trained to recognize that a certain tag has a certain value and attempts to recreate that Diffusion models are a type of generative model that create data similar to the data they were trained on. They do this by gradually adding Gaussian noise to training data, then learning to recover the data by going in the opposite direction. You give it 100 pictures of an apple and then ask it to make a picture of an apple and it gives you a green spherical blob and you say “this is not an apple” and continue forwards until it can pretty confidently give you an apple most of the time. You do this with thousands of concepts until it can pretty convincingly come up with an apple as drawn by Leonardo Davinci on his lunch break. At no point did Leonardo draw an apple and there are no other images for it to stick together. The image is the first of its kind and has not existed prior to this. \n\nBut let’s assume for a moment that it is actually just a collage. Collage is a recognized art form and thus either what the model made is art or collage isn’t.\n\n2) AI steals artists work \n\nOnly if you believe that you are stealing when you look at someone’s work and attempt to get better at it by imitating their style at home and having someone constantly critique how close you are. Since style cannot be considered intellectual property this argument is likely proposing one of two things: (1) either the AI is using actual pieces of someone’s work (or is close enough that it could be considered theft) which is not what should be happening given the training and if it is we can fairly admit that this is a problem. (2) the AI retains artist work to use, which we know that it doesn’t as once training is complete it is using only itself. Regardless, surgeons aren’t marching in the street because robots are being trained on their images or surgeries. Programmers haven’t unionized to block AI development or refuse to paste their code to GitHub out of fear of AI taking their job. Programmers aren’t writing “poisoned code” to make sure that anything they develop is unusable by data scraping in the future. \n\nBut let’s say that this is theft. Using art to learn is theft because the artists did not consent to it. I have never seen an AI art opponent direct people to avoid SD, DALLE, MJ and to instead use Adobe or ShutterStock or Getty. Despite the fact that these sources used their own proprietary images and pay their artists. The second that an ethical source of AI images is found the goalpost is moved to “No AI art ever” despite the images now being “ethically sourced”\n\n3) Artists are losing their jobs \n\nYes. This sucks. Just like the combine harvester made many farmhands suddenly unemployed, just like a he printing press made individual scribes no longer necessary, low skill art has now been replaced. If the entirety of your art skill was making doodles and the company now has a machine that doodles at 100x the efficiency even with an objectively worse product then your job is going the way of the dodo. The highest level of skill for artists will always remain in demand and companies will continue to need artists to edit/refine/improve the AIs content but increasingly less. But the people who cry out against this have zero moral objection to the idea that truck drivers are soon going to be replaced. They have no complaints that surgery could very soon be done better by a robot. They don’t mind at all that a computer can likely calculate your taxes better than an accountant very soon. The people who object see truck drivers, doctors, and accountants as disposable but not artists. For some reason artists are untouchable. For some reason art is sacred. I find it morally reprehensible that people that are anti-AI are okay with AI replacing manual labor or essentially any other job except their domain. Art isn’t special, it’s not holy, it isn’t sacred. It is a skilled labor just like any other. And just like any skilled labor the democratization of that labor will displace those at the lowest skill levels. That’s not wrong or bad or evil. It means that those people now have to pursue other means of survival and that’s okay. Maybe their art can be better, maybe they can find a niche that suits them with specific clients, or maybe they can expand outwards and discover entirely new forms of art that do not require a corporate sponsor to perform. If anyone can now make an okay landscape in a few keystrokes doesn’t that mean that you can now make landscapes purely for love or enjoyment? Why should the entire world hold itself back for your career when you wouldn’t do the same for anyone else’s? \n\nAnd it’s frankly dumb to hold back a technology only because it harms your career prospects. Otherwise, let’s bring lamplighters and stone throwers back so we can wake up to get to work because machines shouldn’t be waking people up \n\n4) AI art can create objectionable things \n\nYes. With how quickly AI is evolving, very quickly you’ll be able to create a video of president trump and Biden taking turns punching a small child. This is is horrible. It’s is also something technology is 100% capable of doing right now. It’s actually something technology was capable of back in 1902 or even earlier. It’s easier now. So we should advocate for policy that all AI images should have markers that identify them as AI. But attempting to stop this technology will only force it underground where much less savory types will have free run. Making AI harmless with good policy is much better than shutting it down In a Butlerian Jihad. \n \n\nThe camera democratized image creation. It did not make painting obsolete, it simply added another medium to create. The mobile phone democratized the camera and did not make photographers obsolete. AI art has only further increased the ease of access to art. Previously unskilled people can now bring their thoughts and feelings to life in a way they previously could not. It will not make artists obsolete - it will simply give them one more tool",
"date": "2024-02-22",
"id": "1ax3iou",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: AI art is inevitable and opposition to it is based on selfishness or misplaced moral outrage",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1ax3iou/cmv_ai_art_is_inevitable_and_opposition_to_it_is/"
},
{
"author": "zk_shadow",
"body": "Former software engineer here chiming in! ChatGPT has definitely changed my workflow quite a LOT (to the point that probably 60-70% of my code is machine generated). That's definitely also true on the image side of things with tools like Dall-E and Midjourney.\n\nShameless plug -- when my co-founder and I left our jobs several months ago, one of the areas we started exploring was adding a collaboration component (we used to work for a Notion competitor) to AI image generation. \n\nOne of the things we're adding in the next couple weeks is the ability for artists/creatives to monetize their own style (so artists would upload their own images that we can finetune our models with), and then monetize any images generated by models finetuned with the artists' own data.\n\nCurious if there's any interest? We're at [Shadow](https://www.withshadow.ai) & currently in our early days (in beta) and giving early users free credits. Please drop me a DM if you want to learn more or give feedback!",
"date": "2024-02-29",
"id": "kso201q",
"parent_id": "1ax3iou",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
]
]
| moderate |
[
{
"author": "Hamza78ch11",
"body": "\nLast years was incredible for the advancement of technology via the creation and public release of LLMs (like ChatGPT) and diffusion models like DALL-e, Stable Diffusion, and Midjourney. \nThe release of ChatGPT has widely been met with acclaim and support and while there are very valid criticisms - it seems that LLMs are very palatable to people in a way that the art models were not. However, even before then AI continues to advance steadily. We are getting closer to self driving cars, AI is increasingly being used in medicine, in biology, chemistry, and programming without the moral objections that come with its use in the arts. The opposition to AI Art is founded in not understanding the technology, fear of misuse, and inconsistent moral policing or fear of unemployment and future career prospects. \n\nEssentially, immediately after release the art community was on the defensive about the images generated by these models. Many people voiced moral objections that AI art is “stealing” or that what the model was doing was simply putting together a collage of other artists work. That what it was doing was not “real art.” Most of the people who object to it fundamentally do not understand how it works. \nThe other most common arguments revolve around moral inconsistency or simply holding art to a standard that is inconsistent.\n\n1) AI art is a collage of other pictures \n\nIt isn’t. This one is not even a tiny bit true. Diffusion models work by a neural network wherein the network is trained to recognize that a certain tag has a certain value and attempts to recreate that Diffusion models are a type of generative model that create data similar to the data they were trained on. They do this by gradually adding Gaussian noise to training data, then learning to recover the data by going in the opposite direction. You give it 100 pictures of an apple and then ask it to make a picture of an apple and it gives you a green spherical blob and you say “this is not an apple” and continue forwards until it can pretty confidently give you an apple most of the time. You do this with thousands of concepts until it can pretty convincingly come up with an apple as drawn by Leonardo Davinci on his lunch break. At no point did Leonardo draw an apple and there are no other images for it to stick together. The image is the first of its kind and has not existed prior to this. \n\nBut let’s assume for a moment that it is actually just a collage. Collage is a recognized art form and thus either what the model made is art or collage isn’t.\n\n2) AI steals artists work \n\nOnly if you believe that you are stealing when you look at someone’s work and attempt to get better at it by imitating their style at home and having someone constantly critique how close you are. Since style cannot be considered intellectual property this argument is likely proposing one of two things: (1) either the AI is using actual pieces of someone’s work (or is close enough that it could be considered theft) which is not what should be happening given the training and if it is we can fairly admit that this is a problem. (2) the AI retains artist work to use, which we know that it doesn’t as once training is complete it is using only itself. Regardless, surgeons aren’t marching in the street because robots are being trained on their images or surgeries. Programmers haven’t unionized to block AI development or refuse to paste their code to GitHub out of fear of AI taking their job. Programmers aren’t writing “poisoned code” to make sure that anything they develop is unusable by data scraping in the future. \n\nBut let’s say that this is theft. Using art to learn is theft because the artists did not consent to it. I have never seen an AI art opponent direct people to avoid SD, DALLE, MJ and to instead use Adobe or ShutterStock or Getty. Despite the fact that these sources used their own proprietary images and pay their artists. The second that an ethical source of AI images is found the goalpost is moved to “No AI art ever” despite the images now being “ethically sourced”\n\n3) Artists are losing their jobs \n\nYes. This sucks. Just like the combine harvester made many farmhands suddenly unemployed, just like a he printing press made individual scribes no longer necessary, low skill art has now been replaced. If the entirety of your art skill was making doodles and the company now has a machine that doodles at 100x the efficiency even with an objectively worse product then your job is going the way of the dodo. The highest level of skill for artists will always remain in demand and companies will continue to need artists to edit/refine/improve the AIs content but increasingly less. But the people who cry out against this have zero moral objection to the idea that truck drivers are soon going to be replaced. They have no complaints that surgery could very soon be done better by a robot. They don’t mind at all that a computer can likely calculate your taxes better than an accountant very soon. The people who object see truck drivers, doctors, and accountants as disposable but not artists. For some reason artists are untouchable. For some reason art is sacred. I find it morally reprehensible that people that are anti-AI are okay with AI replacing manual labor or essentially any other job except their domain. Art isn’t special, it’s not holy, it isn’t sacred. It is a skilled labor just like any other. And just like any skilled labor the democratization of that labor will displace those at the lowest skill levels. That’s not wrong or bad or evil. It means that those people now have to pursue other means of survival and that’s okay. Maybe their art can be better, maybe they can find a niche that suits them with specific clients, or maybe they can expand outwards and discover entirely new forms of art that do not require a corporate sponsor to perform. If anyone can now make an okay landscape in a few keystrokes doesn’t that mean that you can now make landscapes purely for love or enjoyment? Why should the entire world hold itself back for your career when you wouldn’t do the same for anyone else’s? \n\nAnd it’s frankly dumb to hold back a technology only because it harms your career prospects. Otherwise, let’s bring lamplighters and stone throwers back so we can wake up to get to work because machines shouldn’t be waking people up \n\n4) AI art can create objectionable things \n\nYes. With how quickly AI is evolving, very quickly you’ll be able to create a video of president trump and Biden taking turns punching a small child. This is is horrible. It’s is also something technology is 100% capable of doing right now. It’s actually something technology was capable of back in 1902 or even earlier. It’s easier now. So we should advocate for policy that all AI images should have markers that identify them as AI. But attempting to stop this technology will only force it underground where much less savory types will have free run. Making AI harmless with good policy is much better than shutting it down In a Butlerian Jihad. \n \n\nThe camera democratized image creation. It did not make painting obsolete, it simply added another medium to create. The mobile phone democratized the camera and did not make photographers obsolete. AI art has only further increased the ease of access to art. Previously unskilled people can now bring their thoughts and feelings to life in a way they previously could not. It will not make artists obsolete - it will simply give them one more tool",
"date": "2024-02-22",
"id": "1ax3iou",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: AI art is inevitable and opposition to it is based on selfishness or misplaced moral outrage",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1ax3iou/cmv_ai_art_is_inevitable_and_opposition_to_it_is/"
},
{
"author": "ralph-j",
"body": "> The opposition to AI Art is founded in not understanding the technology, fear of misuse, and inconsistent moral policing or fear of unemployment and future career prospects. \n\nThose are not the only reasons for opposing the use of AI art. There are also indirect negative effects, especially due to the scale and ease at which AI operates, and the lack of efforts required:\n\n* It desensitizes people and removes the awe/wow factor that used to be typical for human-created art and media.\n* It makes everyone cynical and suspicious of artists and publishers. Whenever someone takes a picture of some super vibrant scene, or showcases their hard work as a graphic artist, everyone now asks *is this AI?* Or worse: *this must be AI!*\n* It gives wrongdoers even more plausible deniability: *that evidence against me must be manufactured using AI!*\n\nI agree that these are not enough to outlaw it, but they are valid concerns and not \"based on selfishness or misplaced moral outrage\".",
"date": "2024-02-22",
"id": "krlrxa1",
"parent_id": "1ax3iou",
"score": 20,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Hamza78ch11",
"body": "!delta\n\nYou are absolutely correct that those are completely valid reasons to dislike AI Art",
"date": "2024-02-22",
"id": "krls1g0",
"parent_id": "krlrxa1",
"score": 7,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "DeltaBot",
"body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/ralph-j ([482∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/ralph-j)).\n\n^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
"date": "2024-02-22",
"id": "krls535",
"parent_id": "krls1g0",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
]
| [
[
{
"author": "Hamza78ch11",
"body": "\nLast years was incredible for the advancement of technology via the creation and public release of LLMs (like ChatGPT) and diffusion models like DALL-e, Stable Diffusion, and Midjourney. \nThe release of ChatGPT has widely been met with acclaim and support and while there are very valid criticisms - it seems that LLMs are very palatable to people in a way that the art models were not. However, even before then AI continues to advance steadily. We are getting closer to self driving cars, AI is increasingly being used in medicine, in biology, chemistry, and programming without the moral objections that come with its use in the arts. The opposition to AI Art is founded in not understanding the technology, fear of misuse, and inconsistent moral policing or fear of unemployment and future career prospects. \n\nEssentially, immediately after release the art community was on the defensive about the images generated by these models. Many people voiced moral objections that AI art is “stealing” or that what the model was doing was simply putting together a collage of other artists work. That what it was doing was not “real art.” Most of the people who object to it fundamentally do not understand how it works. \nThe other most common arguments revolve around moral inconsistency or simply holding art to a standard that is inconsistent.\n\n1) AI art is a collage of other pictures \n\nIt isn’t. This one is not even a tiny bit true. Diffusion models work by a neural network wherein the network is trained to recognize that a certain tag has a certain value and attempts to recreate that Diffusion models are a type of generative model that create data similar to the data they were trained on. They do this by gradually adding Gaussian noise to training data, then learning to recover the data by going in the opposite direction. You give it 100 pictures of an apple and then ask it to make a picture of an apple and it gives you a green spherical blob and you say “this is not an apple” and continue forwards until it can pretty confidently give you an apple most of the time. You do this with thousands of concepts until it can pretty convincingly come up with an apple as drawn by Leonardo Davinci on his lunch break. At no point did Leonardo draw an apple and there are no other images for it to stick together. The image is the first of its kind and has not existed prior to this. \n\nBut let’s assume for a moment that it is actually just a collage. Collage is a recognized art form and thus either what the model made is art or collage isn’t.\n\n2) AI steals artists work \n\nOnly if you believe that you are stealing when you look at someone’s work and attempt to get better at it by imitating their style at home and having someone constantly critique how close you are. Since style cannot be considered intellectual property this argument is likely proposing one of two things: (1) either the AI is using actual pieces of someone’s work (or is close enough that it could be considered theft) which is not what should be happening given the training and if it is we can fairly admit that this is a problem. (2) the AI retains artist work to use, which we know that it doesn’t as once training is complete it is using only itself. Regardless, surgeons aren’t marching in the street because robots are being trained on their images or surgeries. Programmers haven’t unionized to block AI development or refuse to paste their code to GitHub out of fear of AI taking their job. Programmers aren’t writing “poisoned code” to make sure that anything they develop is unusable by data scraping in the future. \n\nBut let’s say that this is theft. Using art to learn is theft because the artists did not consent to it. I have never seen an AI art opponent direct people to avoid SD, DALLE, MJ and to instead use Adobe or ShutterStock or Getty. Despite the fact that these sources used their own proprietary images and pay their artists. The second that an ethical source of AI images is found the goalpost is moved to “No AI art ever” despite the images now being “ethically sourced”\n\n3) Artists are losing their jobs \n\nYes. This sucks. Just like the combine harvester made many farmhands suddenly unemployed, just like a he printing press made individual scribes no longer necessary, low skill art has now been replaced. If the entirety of your art skill was making doodles and the company now has a machine that doodles at 100x the efficiency even with an objectively worse product then your job is going the way of the dodo. The highest level of skill for artists will always remain in demand and companies will continue to need artists to edit/refine/improve the AIs content but increasingly less. But the people who cry out against this have zero moral objection to the idea that truck drivers are soon going to be replaced. They have no complaints that surgery could very soon be done better by a robot. They don’t mind at all that a computer can likely calculate your taxes better than an accountant very soon. The people who object see truck drivers, doctors, and accountants as disposable but not artists. For some reason artists are untouchable. For some reason art is sacred. I find it morally reprehensible that people that are anti-AI are okay with AI replacing manual labor or essentially any other job except their domain. Art isn’t special, it’s not holy, it isn’t sacred. It is a skilled labor just like any other. And just like any skilled labor the democratization of that labor will displace those at the lowest skill levels. That’s not wrong or bad or evil. It means that those people now have to pursue other means of survival and that’s okay. Maybe their art can be better, maybe they can find a niche that suits them with specific clients, or maybe they can expand outwards and discover entirely new forms of art that do not require a corporate sponsor to perform. If anyone can now make an okay landscape in a few keystrokes doesn’t that mean that you can now make landscapes purely for love or enjoyment? Why should the entire world hold itself back for your career when you wouldn’t do the same for anyone else’s? \n\nAnd it’s frankly dumb to hold back a technology only because it harms your career prospects. Otherwise, let’s bring lamplighters and stone throwers back so we can wake up to get to work because machines shouldn’t be waking people up \n\n4) AI art can create objectionable things \n\nYes. With how quickly AI is evolving, very quickly you’ll be able to create a video of president trump and Biden taking turns punching a small child. This is is horrible. It’s is also something technology is 100% capable of doing right now. It’s actually something technology was capable of back in 1902 or even earlier. It’s easier now. So we should advocate for policy that all AI images should have markers that identify them as AI. But attempting to stop this technology will only force it underground where much less savory types will have free run. Making AI harmless with good policy is much better than shutting it down In a Butlerian Jihad. \n \n\nThe camera democratized image creation. It did not make painting obsolete, it simply added another medium to create. The mobile phone democratized the camera and did not make photographers obsolete. AI art has only further increased the ease of access to art. Previously unskilled people can now bring their thoughts and feelings to life in a way they previously could not. It will not make artists obsolete - it will simply give them one more tool",
"date": "2024-02-22",
"id": "1ax3iou",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: AI art is inevitable and opposition to it is based on selfishness or misplaced moral outrage",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1ax3iou/cmv_ai_art_is_inevitable_and_opposition_to_it_is/"
},
{
"author": "MercurianAspirations",
"body": "I think you missed out completely on my biggest complaint: AI art is soulless garbage. It sucks. It isn't good and it's presence in media will rob me of enjoyment of that media\n\nLike, look at the soulsboune community, for example. There are people who obsessively pore over every detail, no matter how small, in those games because decoding the 'lore' of the games is really fun. The delight of discovering a missed connection or a hidden detail is unmatchable. But as soon as games like these start being made using AI, that goes away forever, right? Nobody will look at a texture of a gravestone in some forgotten corner of a game map again, because they will just assume that it has no meaning because it was made by an AI that inherently can't understand or give a shit about meaning. It just looks the way it does because that's the best the generator could do. Or worse, AI might generate things that appear to have story meaning, but don't, because they were made by an AI that didn't know the story - this has already happened with one game, *Stasis: Bone Totem,* and robbed a lot of people of appreciating that games story because background images that should have been story-relevant were just randomly generated by an AI.\n\nI'm also very interested in film because I like analyzing the staging, blocking, and cinematography of shots. I like to consider the choices made by the director. AI generated imagery will inherently never have this interest for me, and the existence of AI generated video will permanently rob me of some of the enjoyment of it, because why should I bother analyzing something that might have just been spat out by an algorithm?",
"date": "2024-02-22",
"id": "krlbic0",
"parent_id": "1ax3iou",
"score": 35,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Green__lightning",
"body": "That's an interesting point, and largely boils down to significant vs insignificant detail. Ideally, all detail should be significant, but this is impractical and clearly not the case even in human made games, where maybe it's significant that the drapes are blue, or maybe they're just blue because it looked nice, and has no bearing on the story. In brief, complaining about this now is like complaining about the lack of story in The Arrival of a Train, that 1896 film of exactly what it sounds like. Which is to say, I expect AI films will be less creatively bankrupt than what's in theaters now within the decade because of the increased accessibility of filmmaking, and and the AI itself will be good enough to just quietly invent it's own meaning in things in 20-30 years.",
"date": "2024-02-22",
"id": "krlc5i0",
"parent_id": "krlbic0",
"score": 6,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Hamza78ch11",
"body": "\nLast years was incredible for the advancement of technology via the creation and public release of LLMs (like ChatGPT) and diffusion models like DALL-e, Stable Diffusion, and Midjourney. \nThe release of ChatGPT has widely been met with acclaim and support and while there are very valid criticisms - it seems that LLMs are very palatable to people in a way that the art models were not. However, even before then AI continues to advance steadily. We are getting closer to self driving cars, AI is increasingly being used in medicine, in biology, chemistry, and programming without the moral objections that come with its use in the arts. The opposition to AI Art is founded in not understanding the technology, fear of misuse, and inconsistent moral policing or fear of unemployment and future career prospects. \n\nEssentially, immediately after release the art community was on the defensive about the images generated by these models. Many people voiced moral objections that AI art is “stealing” or that what the model was doing was simply putting together a collage of other artists work. That what it was doing was not “real art.” Most of the people who object to it fundamentally do not understand how it works. \nThe other most common arguments revolve around moral inconsistency or simply holding art to a standard that is inconsistent.\n\n1) AI art is a collage of other pictures \n\nIt isn’t. This one is not even a tiny bit true. Diffusion models work by a neural network wherein the network is trained to recognize that a certain tag has a certain value and attempts to recreate that Diffusion models are a type of generative model that create data similar to the data they were trained on. They do this by gradually adding Gaussian noise to training data, then learning to recover the data by going in the opposite direction. You give it 100 pictures of an apple and then ask it to make a picture of an apple and it gives you a green spherical blob and you say “this is not an apple” and continue forwards until it can pretty confidently give you an apple most of the time. You do this with thousands of concepts until it can pretty convincingly come up with an apple as drawn by Leonardo Davinci on his lunch break. At no point did Leonardo draw an apple and there are no other images for it to stick together. The image is the first of its kind and has not existed prior to this. \n\nBut let’s assume for a moment that it is actually just a collage. Collage is a recognized art form and thus either what the model made is art or collage isn’t.\n\n2) AI steals artists work \n\nOnly if you believe that you are stealing when you look at someone’s work and attempt to get better at it by imitating their style at home and having someone constantly critique how close you are. Since style cannot be considered intellectual property this argument is likely proposing one of two things: (1) either the AI is using actual pieces of someone’s work (or is close enough that it could be considered theft) which is not what should be happening given the training and if it is we can fairly admit that this is a problem. (2) the AI retains artist work to use, which we know that it doesn’t as once training is complete it is using only itself. Regardless, surgeons aren’t marching in the street because robots are being trained on their images or surgeries. Programmers haven’t unionized to block AI development or refuse to paste their code to GitHub out of fear of AI taking their job. Programmers aren’t writing “poisoned code” to make sure that anything they develop is unusable by data scraping in the future. \n\nBut let’s say that this is theft. Using art to learn is theft because the artists did not consent to it. I have never seen an AI art opponent direct people to avoid SD, DALLE, MJ and to instead use Adobe or ShutterStock or Getty. Despite the fact that these sources used their own proprietary images and pay their artists. The second that an ethical source of AI images is found the goalpost is moved to “No AI art ever” despite the images now being “ethically sourced”\n\n3) Artists are losing their jobs \n\nYes. This sucks. Just like the combine harvester made many farmhands suddenly unemployed, just like a he printing press made individual scribes no longer necessary, low skill art has now been replaced. If the entirety of your art skill was making doodles and the company now has a machine that doodles at 100x the efficiency even with an objectively worse product then your job is going the way of the dodo. The highest level of skill for artists will always remain in demand and companies will continue to need artists to edit/refine/improve the AIs content but increasingly less. But the people who cry out against this have zero moral objection to the idea that truck drivers are soon going to be replaced. They have no complaints that surgery could very soon be done better by a robot. They don’t mind at all that a computer can likely calculate your taxes better than an accountant very soon. The people who object see truck drivers, doctors, and accountants as disposable but not artists. For some reason artists are untouchable. For some reason art is sacred. I find it morally reprehensible that people that are anti-AI are okay with AI replacing manual labor or essentially any other job except their domain. Art isn’t special, it’s not holy, it isn’t sacred. It is a skilled labor just like any other. And just like any skilled labor the democratization of that labor will displace those at the lowest skill levels. That’s not wrong or bad or evil. It means that those people now have to pursue other means of survival and that’s okay. Maybe their art can be better, maybe they can find a niche that suits them with specific clients, or maybe they can expand outwards and discover entirely new forms of art that do not require a corporate sponsor to perform. If anyone can now make an okay landscape in a few keystrokes doesn’t that mean that you can now make landscapes purely for love or enjoyment? Why should the entire world hold itself back for your career when you wouldn’t do the same for anyone else’s? \n\nAnd it’s frankly dumb to hold back a technology only because it harms your career prospects. Otherwise, let’s bring lamplighters and stone throwers back so we can wake up to get to work because machines shouldn’t be waking people up \n\n4) AI art can create objectionable things \n\nYes. With how quickly AI is evolving, very quickly you’ll be able to create a video of president trump and Biden taking turns punching a small child. This is is horrible. It’s is also something technology is 100% capable of doing right now. It’s actually something technology was capable of back in 1902 or even earlier. It’s easier now. So we should advocate for policy that all AI images should have markers that identify them as AI. But attempting to stop this technology will only force it underground where much less savory types will have free run. Making AI harmless with good policy is much better than shutting it down In a Butlerian Jihad. \n \n\nThe camera democratized image creation. It did not make painting obsolete, it simply added another medium to create. The mobile phone democratized the camera and did not make photographers obsolete. AI art has only further increased the ease of access to art. Previously unskilled people can now bring their thoughts and feelings to life in a way they previously could not. It will not make artists obsolete - it will simply give them one more tool",
"date": "2024-02-22",
"id": "1ax3iou",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: AI art is inevitable and opposition to it is based on selfishness or misplaced moral outrage",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1ax3iou/cmv_ai_art_is_inevitable_and_opposition_to_it_is/"
},
{
"author": "Green__lightning",
"body": "As a generally pro-AI person, there are two main problems with AI art: Firstly is the simple one, that it's creating a floor for professional artists, in that they have to be better then the AI, given the speed this floor is rising at, this will soon be a problem, largely because artists can't get any low level work, and thus few will get good enough to beat the AI. \n\nThe second problem is weirder. You know how before photography, all pictures were as potentially fictional as whatever someone said? We're back to that now, given that AI can render passable fakes of most photorealistic images, video, and audio. This is nothing new for images, audio recording however has always been factual unless you count manually imitating voices. Generally speaking, I don't think it's bad that people can now make passable photorealistic images of most things, but it is bad given what we've built on the idea of photo evidence, and we're going to have at least a bit of a crisis from the breakdown of that as a valid concept. \n\nI see two likely outcomes long term. The first is that video can be tied to a camera cryptographically, and this means you might have to submit your entire dashcam as evidence, it's still valid. \n\nThe second, more likely possibility, is that images, video, and audio become as malleable as text and speech, given that people further integrate into their computers, first through augmented reality, then directly through implants. It becomes entirely normal to imagine something, push that thought to your AI, which then renders it, and you send it to your friends. People likely become effectively telepathic through their implants, and the internet becomes a digital fog which lays over the real world, perfectly perceived by the augmented as they go about their daily life.",
"date": "2024-02-22",
"id": "krlbk8t",
"parent_id": "1ax3iou",
"score": 6,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Hamza78ch11",
"body": "I actually hadn’t considered the second case but I think it is generally in line with my view that technology and policy can ensure good practice with AI and prevent bad actors from getting too much control",
"date": "2024-02-22",
"id": "krlcknv",
"parent_id": "krlbk8t",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Hamza78ch11",
"body": "\nLast years was incredible for the advancement of technology via the creation and public release of LLMs (like ChatGPT) and diffusion models like DALL-e, Stable Diffusion, and Midjourney. \nThe release of ChatGPT has widely been met with acclaim and support and while there are very valid criticisms - it seems that LLMs are very palatable to people in a way that the art models were not. However, even before then AI continues to advance steadily. We are getting closer to self driving cars, AI is increasingly being used in medicine, in biology, chemistry, and programming without the moral objections that come with its use in the arts. The opposition to AI Art is founded in not understanding the technology, fear of misuse, and inconsistent moral policing or fear of unemployment and future career prospects. \n\nEssentially, immediately after release the art community was on the defensive about the images generated by these models. Many people voiced moral objections that AI art is “stealing” or that what the model was doing was simply putting together a collage of other artists work. That what it was doing was not “real art.” Most of the people who object to it fundamentally do not understand how it works. \nThe other most common arguments revolve around moral inconsistency or simply holding art to a standard that is inconsistent.\n\n1) AI art is a collage of other pictures \n\nIt isn’t. This one is not even a tiny bit true. Diffusion models work by a neural network wherein the network is trained to recognize that a certain tag has a certain value and attempts to recreate that Diffusion models are a type of generative model that create data similar to the data they were trained on. They do this by gradually adding Gaussian noise to training data, then learning to recover the data by going in the opposite direction. You give it 100 pictures of an apple and then ask it to make a picture of an apple and it gives you a green spherical blob and you say “this is not an apple” and continue forwards until it can pretty confidently give you an apple most of the time. You do this with thousands of concepts until it can pretty convincingly come up with an apple as drawn by Leonardo Davinci on his lunch break. At no point did Leonardo draw an apple and there are no other images for it to stick together. The image is the first of its kind and has not existed prior to this. \n\nBut let’s assume for a moment that it is actually just a collage. Collage is a recognized art form and thus either what the model made is art or collage isn’t.\n\n2) AI steals artists work \n\nOnly if you believe that you are stealing when you look at someone’s work and attempt to get better at it by imitating their style at home and having someone constantly critique how close you are. Since style cannot be considered intellectual property this argument is likely proposing one of two things: (1) either the AI is using actual pieces of someone’s work (or is close enough that it could be considered theft) which is not what should be happening given the training and if it is we can fairly admit that this is a problem. (2) the AI retains artist work to use, which we know that it doesn’t as once training is complete it is using only itself. Regardless, surgeons aren’t marching in the street because robots are being trained on their images or surgeries. Programmers haven’t unionized to block AI development or refuse to paste their code to GitHub out of fear of AI taking their job. Programmers aren’t writing “poisoned code” to make sure that anything they develop is unusable by data scraping in the future. \n\nBut let’s say that this is theft. Using art to learn is theft because the artists did not consent to it. I have never seen an AI art opponent direct people to avoid SD, DALLE, MJ and to instead use Adobe or ShutterStock or Getty. Despite the fact that these sources used their own proprietary images and pay their artists. The second that an ethical source of AI images is found the goalpost is moved to “No AI art ever” despite the images now being “ethically sourced”\n\n3) Artists are losing their jobs \n\nYes. This sucks. Just like the combine harvester made many farmhands suddenly unemployed, just like a he printing press made individual scribes no longer necessary, low skill art has now been replaced. If the entirety of your art skill was making doodles and the company now has a machine that doodles at 100x the efficiency even with an objectively worse product then your job is going the way of the dodo. The highest level of skill for artists will always remain in demand and companies will continue to need artists to edit/refine/improve the AIs content but increasingly less. But the people who cry out against this have zero moral objection to the idea that truck drivers are soon going to be replaced. They have no complaints that surgery could very soon be done better by a robot. They don’t mind at all that a computer can likely calculate your taxes better than an accountant very soon. The people who object see truck drivers, doctors, and accountants as disposable but not artists. For some reason artists are untouchable. For some reason art is sacred. I find it morally reprehensible that people that are anti-AI are okay with AI replacing manual labor or essentially any other job except their domain. Art isn’t special, it’s not holy, it isn’t sacred. It is a skilled labor just like any other. And just like any skilled labor the democratization of that labor will displace those at the lowest skill levels. That’s not wrong or bad or evil. It means that those people now have to pursue other means of survival and that’s okay. Maybe their art can be better, maybe they can find a niche that suits them with specific clients, or maybe they can expand outwards and discover entirely new forms of art that do not require a corporate sponsor to perform. If anyone can now make an okay landscape in a few keystrokes doesn’t that mean that you can now make landscapes purely for love or enjoyment? Why should the entire world hold itself back for your career when you wouldn’t do the same for anyone else’s? \n\nAnd it’s frankly dumb to hold back a technology only because it harms your career prospects. Otherwise, let’s bring lamplighters and stone throwers back so we can wake up to get to work because machines shouldn’t be waking people up \n\n4) AI art can create objectionable things \n\nYes. With how quickly AI is evolving, very quickly you’ll be able to create a video of president trump and Biden taking turns punching a small child. This is is horrible. It’s is also something technology is 100% capable of doing right now. It’s actually something technology was capable of back in 1902 or even earlier. It’s easier now. So we should advocate for policy that all AI images should have markers that identify them as AI. But attempting to stop this technology will only force it underground where much less savory types will have free run. Making AI harmless with good policy is much better than shutting it down In a Butlerian Jihad. \n \n\nThe camera democratized image creation. It did not make painting obsolete, it simply added another medium to create. The mobile phone democratized the camera and did not make photographers obsolete. AI art has only further increased the ease of access to art. Previously unskilled people can now bring their thoughts and feelings to life in a way they previously could not. It will not make artists obsolete - it will simply give them one more tool",
"date": "2024-02-22",
"id": "1ax3iou",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: AI art is inevitable and opposition to it is based on selfishness or misplaced moral outrage",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1ax3iou/cmv_ai_art_is_inevitable_and_opposition_to_it_is/"
},
{
"author": "5Tenacious_Dee5",
"body": "I don't mind AI art. AI is a tool.\n\nBut to think it doesn't have IP implications is just ignorant. But I'm sure this can be mitigated, using AI ironically. Just teach it the rules.",
"date": "2024-02-22",
"id": "krlc2j9",
"parent_id": "1ax3iou",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Hamza78ch11",
"body": "I think you agree with me lol",
"date": "2024-02-22",
"id": "krlcf86",
"parent_id": "krlc2j9",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Hamza78ch11",
"body": "\nLast years was incredible for the advancement of technology via the creation and public release of LLMs (like ChatGPT) and diffusion models like DALL-e, Stable Diffusion, and Midjourney. \nThe release of ChatGPT has widely been met with acclaim and support and while there are very valid criticisms - it seems that LLMs are very palatable to people in a way that the art models were not. However, even before then AI continues to advance steadily. We are getting closer to self driving cars, AI is increasingly being used in medicine, in biology, chemistry, and programming without the moral objections that come with its use in the arts. The opposition to AI Art is founded in not understanding the technology, fear of misuse, and inconsistent moral policing or fear of unemployment and future career prospects. \n\nEssentially, immediately after release the art community was on the defensive about the images generated by these models. Many people voiced moral objections that AI art is “stealing” or that what the model was doing was simply putting together a collage of other artists work. That what it was doing was not “real art.” Most of the people who object to it fundamentally do not understand how it works. \nThe other most common arguments revolve around moral inconsistency or simply holding art to a standard that is inconsistent.\n\n1) AI art is a collage of other pictures \n\nIt isn’t. This one is not even a tiny bit true. Diffusion models work by a neural network wherein the network is trained to recognize that a certain tag has a certain value and attempts to recreate that Diffusion models are a type of generative model that create data similar to the data they were trained on. They do this by gradually adding Gaussian noise to training data, then learning to recover the data by going in the opposite direction. You give it 100 pictures of an apple and then ask it to make a picture of an apple and it gives you a green spherical blob and you say “this is not an apple” and continue forwards until it can pretty confidently give you an apple most of the time. You do this with thousands of concepts until it can pretty convincingly come up with an apple as drawn by Leonardo Davinci on his lunch break. At no point did Leonardo draw an apple and there are no other images for it to stick together. The image is the first of its kind and has not existed prior to this. \n\nBut let’s assume for a moment that it is actually just a collage. Collage is a recognized art form and thus either what the model made is art or collage isn’t.\n\n2) AI steals artists work \n\nOnly if you believe that you are stealing when you look at someone’s work and attempt to get better at it by imitating their style at home and having someone constantly critique how close you are. Since style cannot be considered intellectual property this argument is likely proposing one of two things: (1) either the AI is using actual pieces of someone’s work (or is close enough that it could be considered theft) which is not what should be happening given the training and if it is we can fairly admit that this is a problem. (2) the AI retains artist work to use, which we know that it doesn’t as once training is complete it is using only itself. Regardless, surgeons aren’t marching in the street because robots are being trained on their images or surgeries. Programmers haven’t unionized to block AI development or refuse to paste their code to GitHub out of fear of AI taking their job. Programmers aren’t writing “poisoned code” to make sure that anything they develop is unusable by data scraping in the future. \n\nBut let’s say that this is theft. Using art to learn is theft because the artists did not consent to it. I have never seen an AI art opponent direct people to avoid SD, DALLE, MJ and to instead use Adobe or ShutterStock or Getty. Despite the fact that these sources used their own proprietary images and pay their artists. The second that an ethical source of AI images is found the goalpost is moved to “No AI art ever” despite the images now being “ethically sourced”\n\n3) Artists are losing their jobs \n\nYes. This sucks. Just like the combine harvester made many farmhands suddenly unemployed, just like a he printing press made individual scribes no longer necessary, low skill art has now been replaced. If the entirety of your art skill was making doodles and the company now has a machine that doodles at 100x the efficiency even with an objectively worse product then your job is going the way of the dodo. The highest level of skill for artists will always remain in demand and companies will continue to need artists to edit/refine/improve the AIs content but increasingly less. But the people who cry out against this have zero moral objection to the idea that truck drivers are soon going to be replaced. They have no complaints that surgery could very soon be done better by a robot. They don’t mind at all that a computer can likely calculate your taxes better than an accountant very soon. The people who object see truck drivers, doctors, and accountants as disposable but not artists. For some reason artists are untouchable. For some reason art is sacred. I find it morally reprehensible that people that are anti-AI are okay with AI replacing manual labor or essentially any other job except their domain. Art isn’t special, it’s not holy, it isn’t sacred. It is a skilled labor just like any other. And just like any skilled labor the democratization of that labor will displace those at the lowest skill levels. That’s not wrong or bad or evil. It means that those people now have to pursue other means of survival and that’s okay. Maybe their art can be better, maybe they can find a niche that suits them with specific clients, or maybe they can expand outwards and discover entirely new forms of art that do not require a corporate sponsor to perform. If anyone can now make an okay landscape in a few keystrokes doesn’t that mean that you can now make landscapes purely for love or enjoyment? Why should the entire world hold itself back for your career when you wouldn’t do the same for anyone else’s? \n\nAnd it’s frankly dumb to hold back a technology only because it harms your career prospects. Otherwise, let’s bring lamplighters and stone throwers back so we can wake up to get to work because machines shouldn’t be waking people up \n\n4) AI art can create objectionable things \n\nYes. With how quickly AI is evolving, very quickly you’ll be able to create a video of president trump and Biden taking turns punching a small child. This is is horrible. It’s is also something technology is 100% capable of doing right now. It’s actually something technology was capable of back in 1902 or even earlier. It’s easier now. So we should advocate for policy that all AI images should have markers that identify them as AI. But attempting to stop this technology will only force it underground where much less savory types will have free run. Making AI harmless with good policy is much better than shutting it down In a Butlerian Jihad. \n \n\nThe camera democratized image creation. It did not make painting obsolete, it simply added another medium to create. The mobile phone democratized the camera and did not make photographers obsolete. AI art has only further increased the ease of access to art. Previously unskilled people can now bring their thoughts and feelings to life in a way they previously could not. It will not make artists obsolete - it will simply give them one more tool",
"date": "2024-02-22",
"id": "1ax3iou",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: AI art is inevitable and opposition to it is based on selfishness or misplaced moral outrage",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1ax3iou/cmv_ai_art_is_inevitable_and_opposition_to_it_is/"
},
{
"author": "jso__",
"body": "I think the key difference in AI art (in terms of IP, at least) is that it doesn't think. It doesn't look at art and consolidate it in a logical and thoughtful manner (as a human would do), it takes in art, combines it in a random manner which it's told is optimal, and spits out a product. By definition, everything which current AI models create are 100% derivative of existing works. They can't create new things.",
"date": "2024-02-22",
"id": "krlcytj",
"parent_id": "1ax3iou",
"score": 7,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Hamza78ch11",
"body": "I don’t think that’s actually true. In so far as making a composite is concerned I don’t believe that’s how diffusion models function but an open to learning more if that’s the case.",
"date": "2024-02-22",
"id": "krld5c5",
"parent_id": "krlcytj",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Hamza78ch11",
"body": "\nLast years was incredible for the advancement of technology via the creation and public release of LLMs (like ChatGPT) and diffusion models like DALL-e, Stable Diffusion, and Midjourney. \nThe release of ChatGPT has widely been met with acclaim and support and while there are very valid criticisms - it seems that LLMs are very palatable to people in a way that the art models were not. However, even before then AI continues to advance steadily. We are getting closer to self driving cars, AI is increasingly being used in medicine, in biology, chemistry, and programming without the moral objections that come with its use in the arts. The opposition to AI Art is founded in not understanding the technology, fear of misuse, and inconsistent moral policing or fear of unemployment and future career prospects. \n\nEssentially, immediately after release the art community was on the defensive about the images generated by these models. Many people voiced moral objections that AI art is “stealing” or that what the model was doing was simply putting together a collage of other artists work. That what it was doing was not “real art.” Most of the people who object to it fundamentally do not understand how it works. \nThe other most common arguments revolve around moral inconsistency or simply holding art to a standard that is inconsistent.\n\n1) AI art is a collage of other pictures \n\nIt isn’t. This one is not even a tiny bit true. Diffusion models work by a neural network wherein the network is trained to recognize that a certain tag has a certain value and attempts to recreate that Diffusion models are a type of generative model that create data similar to the data they were trained on. They do this by gradually adding Gaussian noise to training data, then learning to recover the data by going in the opposite direction. You give it 100 pictures of an apple and then ask it to make a picture of an apple and it gives you a green spherical blob and you say “this is not an apple” and continue forwards until it can pretty confidently give you an apple most of the time. You do this with thousands of concepts until it can pretty convincingly come up with an apple as drawn by Leonardo Davinci on his lunch break. At no point did Leonardo draw an apple and there are no other images for it to stick together. The image is the first of its kind and has not existed prior to this. \n\nBut let’s assume for a moment that it is actually just a collage. Collage is a recognized art form and thus either what the model made is art or collage isn’t.\n\n2) AI steals artists work \n\nOnly if you believe that you are stealing when you look at someone’s work and attempt to get better at it by imitating their style at home and having someone constantly critique how close you are. Since style cannot be considered intellectual property this argument is likely proposing one of two things: (1) either the AI is using actual pieces of someone’s work (or is close enough that it could be considered theft) which is not what should be happening given the training and if it is we can fairly admit that this is a problem. (2) the AI retains artist work to use, which we know that it doesn’t as once training is complete it is using only itself. Regardless, surgeons aren’t marching in the street because robots are being trained on their images or surgeries. Programmers haven’t unionized to block AI development or refuse to paste their code to GitHub out of fear of AI taking their job. Programmers aren’t writing “poisoned code” to make sure that anything they develop is unusable by data scraping in the future. \n\nBut let’s say that this is theft. Using art to learn is theft because the artists did not consent to it. I have never seen an AI art opponent direct people to avoid SD, DALLE, MJ and to instead use Adobe or ShutterStock or Getty. Despite the fact that these sources used their own proprietary images and pay their artists. The second that an ethical source of AI images is found the goalpost is moved to “No AI art ever” despite the images now being “ethically sourced”\n\n3) Artists are losing their jobs \n\nYes. This sucks. Just like the combine harvester made many farmhands suddenly unemployed, just like a he printing press made individual scribes no longer necessary, low skill art has now been replaced. If the entirety of your art skill was making doodles and the company now has a machine that doodles at 100x the efficiency even with an objectively worse product then your job is going the way of the dodo. The highest level of skill for artists will always remain in demand and companies will continue to need artists to edit/refine/improve the AIs content but increasingly less. But the people who cry out against this have zero moral objection to the idea that truck drivers are soon going to be replaced. They have no complaints that surgery could very soon be done better by a robot. They don’t mind at all that a computer can likely calculate your taxes better than an accountant very soon. The people who object see truck drivers, doctors, and accountants as disposable but not artists. For some reason artists are untouchable. For some reason art is sacred. I find it morally reprehensible that people that are anti-AI are okay with AI replacing manual labor or essentially any other job except their domain. Art isn’t special, it’s not holy, it isn’t sacred. It is a skilled labor just like any other. And just like any skilled labor the democratization of that labor will displace those at the lowest skill levels. That’s not wrong or bad or evil. It means that those people now have to pursue other means of survival and that’s okay. Maybe their art can be better, maybe they can find a niche that suits them with specific clients, or maybe they can expand outwards and discover entirely new forms of art that do not require a corporate sponsor to perform. If anyone can now make an okay landscape in a few keystrokes doesn’t that mean that you can now make landscapes purely for love or enjoyment? Why should the entire world hold itself back for your career when you wouldn’t do the same for anyone else’s? \n\nAnd it’s frankly dumb to hold back a technology only because it harms your career prospects. Otherwise, let’s bring lamplighters and stone throwers back so we can wake up to get to work because machines shouldn’t be waking people up \n\n4) AI art can create objectionable things \n\nYes. With how quickly AI is evolving, very quickly you’ll be able to create a video of president trump and Biden taking turns punching a small child. This is is horrible. It’s is also something technology is 100% capable of doing right now. It’s actually something technology was capable of back in 1902 or even earlier. It’s easier now. So we should advocate for policy that all AI images should have markers that identify them as AI. But attempting to stop this technology will only force it underground where much less savory types will have free run. Making AI harmless with good policy is much better than shutting it down In a Butlerian Jihad. \n \n\nThe camera democratized image creation. It did not make painting obsolete, it simply added another medium to create. The mobile phone democratized the camera and did not make photographers obsolete. AI art has only further increased the ease of access to art. Previously unskilled people can now bring their thoughts and feelings to life in a way they previously could not. It will not make artists obsolete - it will simply give them one more tool",
"date": "2024-02-22",
"id": "1ax3iou",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: AI art is inevitable and opposition to it is based on selfishness or misplaced moral outrage",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1ax3iou/cmv_ai_art_is_inevitable_and_opposition_to_it_is/"
},
{
"author": "KokonutMonkey",
"body": "What if I'm a teacher?\n\nIf my job is to instruct learners how to draw, paint, etc., it seems reasonable to reject AI generated submissions. ",
"date": "2024-02-22",
"id": "krlgqxl",
"parent_id": "1ax3iou",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Hamza78ch11",
"body": "Yes, if a student is taking a class to learn how to paint and the submit an AI generated piece they should fail. Just like if I submit a French essay to my Arabic professor I would likely fail. Because both I and your hypothetical student are producing work that is not in line with what was asked of us",
"date": "2024-02-22",
"id": "krlhdxg",
"parent_id": "krlgqxl",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Hamza78ch11",
"body": "\nLast years was incredible for the advancement of technology via the creation and public release of LLMs (like ChatGPT) and diffusion models like DALL-e, Stable Diffusion, and Midjourney. \nThe release of ChatGPT has widely been met with acclaim and support and while there are very valid criticisms - it seems that LLMs are very palatable to people in a way that the art models were not. However, even before then AI continues to advance steadily. We are getting closer to self driving cars, AI is increasingly being used in medicine, in biology, chemistry, and programming without the moral objections that come with its use in the arts. The opposition to AI Art is founded in not understanding the technology, fear of misuse, and inconsistent moral policing or fear of unemployment and future career prospects. \n\nEssentially, immediately after release the art community was on the defensive about the images generated by these models. Many people voiced moral objections that AI art is “stealing” or that what the model was doing was simply putting together a collage of other artists work. That what it was doing was not “real art.” Most of the people who object to it fundamentally do not understand how it works. \nThe other most common arguments revolve around moral inconsistency or simply holding art to a standard that is inconsistent.\n\n1) AI art is a collage of other pictures \n\nIt isn’t. This one is not even a tiny bit true. Diffusion models work by a neural network wherein the network is trained to recognize that a certain tag has a certain value and attempts to recreate that Diffusion models are a type of generative model that create data similar to the data they were trained on. They do this by gradually adding Gaussian noise to training data, then learning to recover the data by going in the opposite direction. You give it 100 pictures of an apple and then ask it to make a picture of an apple and it gives you a green spherical blob and you say “this is not an apple” and continue forwards until it can pretty confidently give you an apple most of the time. You do this with thousands of concepts until it can pretty convincingly come up with an apple as drawn by Leonardo Davinci on his lunch break. At no point did Leonardo draw an apple and there are no other images for it to stick together. The image is the first of its kind and has not existed prior to this. \n\nBut let’s assume for a moment that it is actually just a collage. Collage is a recognized art form and thus either what the model made is art or collage isn’t.\n\n2) AI steals artists work \n\nOnly if you believe that you are stealing when you look at someone’s work and attempt to get better at it by imitating their style at home and having someone constantly critique how close you are. Since style cannot be considered intellectual property this argument is likely proposing one of two things: (1) either the AI is using actual pieces of someone’s work (or is close enough that it could be considered theft) which is not what should be happening given the training and if it is we can fairly admit that this is a problem. (2) the AI retains artist work to use, which we know that it doesn’t as once training is complete it is using only itself. Regardless, surgeons aren’t marching in the street because robots are being trained on their images or surgeries. Programmers haven’t unionized to block AI development or refuse to paste their code to GitHub out of fear of AI taking their job. Programmers aren’t writing “poisoned code” to make sure that anything they develop is unusable by data scraping in the future. \n\nBut let’s say that this is theft. Using art to learn is theft because the artists did not consent to it. I have never seen an AI art opponent direct people to avoid SD, DALLE, MJ and to instead use Adobe or ShutterStock or Getty. Despite the fact that these sources used their own proprietary images and pay their artists. The second that an ethical source of AI images is found the goalpost is moved to “No AI art ever” despite the images now being “ethically sourced”\n\n3) Artists are losing their jobs \n\nYes. This sucks. Just like the combine harvester made many farmhands suddenly unemployed, just like a he printing press made individual scribes no longer necessary, low skill art has now been replaced. If the entirety of your art skill was making doodles and the company now has a machine that doodles at 100x the efficiency even with an objectively worse product then your job is going the way of the dodo. The highest level of skill for artists will always remain in demand and companies will continue to need artists to edit/refine/improve the AIs content but increasingly less. But the people who cry out against this have zero moral objection to the idea that truck drivers are soon going to be replaced. They have no complaints that surgery could very soon be done better by a robot. They don’t mind at all that a computer can likely calculate your taxes better than an accountant very soon. The people who object see truck drivers, doctors, and accountants as disposable but not artists. For some reason artists are untouchable. For some reason art is sacred. I find it morally reprehensible that people that are anti-AI are okay with AI replacing manual labor or essentially any other job except their domain. Art isn’t special, it’s not holy, it isn’t sacred. It is a skilled labor just like any other. And just like any skilled labor the democratization of that labor will displace those at the lowest skill levels. That’s not wrong or bad or evil. It means that those people now have to pursue other means of survival and that’s okay. Maybe their art can be better, maybe they can find a niche that suits them with specific clients, or maybe they can expand outwards and discover entirely new forms of art that do not require a corporate sponsor to perform. If anyone can now make an okay landscape in a few keystrokes doesn’t that mean that you can now make landscapes purely for love or enjoyment? Why should the entire world hold itself back for your career when you wouldn’t do the same for anyone else’s? \n\nAnd it’s frankly dumb to hold back a technology only because it harms your career prospects. Otherwise, let’s bring lamplighters and stone throwers back so we can wake up to get to work because machines shouldn’t be waking people up \n\n4) AI art can create objectionable things \n\nYes. With how quickly AI is evolving, very quickly you’ll be able to create a video of president trump and Biden taking turns punching a small child. This is is horrible. It’s is also something technology is 100% capable of doing right now. It’s actually something technology was capable of back in 1902 or even earlier. It’s easier now. So we should advocate for policy that all AI images should have markers that identify them as AI. But attempting to stop this technology will only force it underground where much less savory types will have free run. Making AI harmless with good policy is much better than shutting it down In a Butlerian Jihad. \n \n\nThe camera democratized image creation. It did not make painting obsolete, it simply added another medium to create. The mobile phone democratized the camera and did not make photographers obsolete. AI art has only further increased the ease of access to art. Previously unskilled people can now bring their thoughts and feelings to life in a way they previously could not. It will not make artists obsolete - it will simply give them one more tool",
"date": "2024-02-22",
"id": "1ax3iou",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: AI art is inevitable and opposition to it is based on selfishness or misplaced moral outrage",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1ax3iou/cmv_ai_art_is_inevitable_and_opposition_to_it_is/"
},
{
"author": "jake_burger",
"body": "To make a camera you don’t have to steal artist’s paintings.\n\nIf AI needs training data and they are going to make money from it they should pay to use it like everyone else has to.",
"date": "2024-02-22",
"id": "krlpcth",
"parent_id": "1ax3iou",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Hamza78ch11",
"body": "Adobe, Getty, and ShutterStock do. So you’re okay with those models, yes?",
"date": "2024-02-22",
"id": "krlq383",
"parent_id": "krlpcth",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Hamza78ch11",
"body": "\nLast years was incredible for the advancement of technology via the creation and public release of LLMs (like ChatGPT) and diffusion models like DALL-e, Stable Diffusion, and Midjourney. \nThe release of ChatGPT has widely been met with acclaim and support and while there are very valid criticisms - it seems that LLMs are very palatable to people in a way that the art models were not. However, even before then AI continues to advance steadily. We are getting closer to self driving cars, AI is increasingly being used in medicine, in biology, chemistry, and programming without the moral objections that come with its use in the arts. The opposition to AI Art is founded in not understanding the technology, fear of misuse, and inconsistent moral policing or fear of unemployment and future career prospects. \n\nEssentially, immediately after release the art community was on the defensive about the images generated by these models. Many people voiced moral objections that AI art is “stealing” or that what the model was doing was simply putting together a collage of other artists work. That what it was doing was not “real art.” Most of the people who object to it fundamentally do not understand how it works. \nThe other most common arguments revolve around moral inconsistency or simply holding art to a standard that is inconsistent.\n\n1) AI art is a collage of other pictures \n\nIt isn’t. This one is not even a tiny bit true. Diffusion models work by a neural network wherein the network is trained to recognize that a certain tag has a certain value and attempts to recreate that Diffusion models are a type of generative model that create data similar to the data they were trained on. They do this by gradually adding Gaussian noise to training data, then learning to recover the data by going in the opposite direction. You give it 100 pictures of an apple and then ask it to make a picture of an apple and it gives you a green spherical blob and you say “this is not an apple” and continue forwards until it can pretty confidently give you an apple most of the time. You do this with thousands of concepts until it can pretty convincingly come up with an apple as drawn by Leonardo Davinci on his lunch break. At no point did Leonardo draw an apple and there are no other images for it to stick together. The image is the first of its kind and has not existed prior to this. \n\nBut let’s assume for a moment that it is actually just a collage. Collage is a recognized art form and thus either what the model made is art or collage isn’t.\n\n2) AI steals artists work \n\nOnly if you believe that you are stealing when you look at someone’s work and attempt to get better at it by imitating their style at home and having someone constantly critique how close you are. Since style cannot be considered intellectual property this argument is likely proposing one of two things: (1) either the AI is using actual pieces of someone’s work (or is close enough that it could be considered theft) which is not what should be happening given the training and if it is we can fairly admit that this is a problem. (2) the AI retains artist work to use, which we know that it doesn’t as once training is complete it is using only itself. Regardless, surgeons aren’t marching in the street because robots are being trained on their images or surgeries. Programmers haven’t unionized to block AI development or refuse to paste their code to GitHub out of fear of AI taking their job. Programmers aren’t writing “poisoned code” to make sure that anything they develop is unusable by data scraping in the future. \n\nBut let’s say that this is theft. Using art to learn is theft because the artists did not consent to it. I have never seen an AI art opponent direct people to avoid SD, DALLE, MJ and to instead use Adobe or ShutterStock or Getty. Despite the fact that these sources used their own proprietary images and pay their artists. The second that an ethical source of AI images is found the goalpost is moved to “No AI art ever” despite the images now being “ethically sourced”\n\n3) Artists are losing their jobs \n\nYes. This sucks. Just like the combine harvester made many farmhands suddenly unemployed, just like a he printing press made individual scribes no longer necessary, low skill art has now been replaced. If the entirety of your art skill was making doodles and the company now has a machine that doodles at 100x the efficiency even with an objectively worse product then your job is going the way of the dodo. The highest level of skill for artists will always remain in demand and companies will continue to need artists to edit/refine/improve the AIs content but increasingly less. But the people who cry out against this have zero moral objection to the idea that truck drivers are soon going to be replaced. They have no complaints that surgery could very soon be done better by a robot. They don’t mind at all that a computer can likely calculate your taxes better than an accountant very soon. The people who object see truck drivers, doctors, and accountants as disposable but not artists. For some reason artists are untouchable. For some reason art is sacred. I find it morally reprehensible that people that are anti-AI are okay with AI replacing manual labor or essentially any other job except their domain. Art isn’t special, it’s not holy, it isn’t sacred. It is a skilled labor just like any other. And just like any skilled labor the democratization of that labor will displace those at the lowest skill levels. That’s not wrong or bad or evil. It means that those people now have to pursue other means of survival and that’s okay. Maybe their art can be better, maybe they can find a niche that suits them with specific clients, or maybe they can expand outwards and discover entirely new forms of art that do not require a corporate sponsor to perform. If anyone can now make an okay landscape in a few keystrokes doesn’t that mean that you can now make landscapes purely for love or enjoyment? Why should the entire world hold itself back for your career when you wouldn’t do the same for anyone else’s? \n\nAnd it’s frankly dumb to hold back a technology only because it harms your career prospects. Otherwise, let’s bring lamplighters and stone throwers back so we can wake up to get to work because machines shouldn’t be waking people up \n\n4) AI art can create objectionable things \n\nYes. With how quickly AI is evolving, very quickly you’ll be able to create a video of president trump and Biden taking turns punching a small child. This is is horrible. It’s is also something technology is 100% capable of doing right now. It’s actually something technology was capable of back in 1902 or even earlier. It’s easier now. So we should advocate for policy that all AI images should have markers that identify them as AI. But attempting to stop this technology will only force it underground where much less savory types will have free run. Making AI harmless with good policy is much better than shutting it down In a Butlerian Jihad. \n \n\nThe camera democratized image creation. It did not make painting obsolete, it simply added another medium to create. The mobile phone democratized the camera and did not make photographers obsolete. AI art has only further increased the ease of access to art. Previously unskilled people can now bring their thoughts and feelings to life in a way they previously could not. It will not make artists obsolete - it will simply give them one more tool",
"date": "2024-02-22",
"id": "1ax3iou",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: AI art is inevitable and opposition to it is based on selfishness or misplaced moral outrage",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1ax3iou/cmv_ai_art_is_inevitable_and_opposition_to_it_is/"
},
{
"author": "Affectionate_Money34",
"body": "I think you misunderstood the AI is a collage.\n\nPrior to the current technique, we had a technique to create an apple by Leondaro that involved some simple mathematical concepts (distance to picture of apple, correlation to picture of Leonardo)\n\nThe current technique does better than the clear mathematical formulation, but don't cheat yourself, there is still a (complex) formulation.\n\nThe argument is that this complexity is significantly smaller than the human experience. As such, if there was never a drawing of Leonardo, AI would have not invented it, but by having AI do almost all of the art you will not get that picture as it will not be invented by humans.\n\nIs human ingenuity needed, and if so, how do we leave room for it?",
"date": "2024-02-22",
"id": "krlr6uf",
"parent_id": "1ax3iou",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Hamza78ch11",
"body": "\nLast years was incredible for the advancement of technology via the creation and public release of LLMs (like ChatGPT) and diffusion models like DALL-e, Stable Diffusion, and Midjourney. \nThe release of ChatGPT has widely been met with acclaim and support and while there are very valid criticisms - it seems that LLMs are very palatable to people in a way that the art models were not. However, even before then AI continues to advance steadily. We are getting closer to self driving cars, AI is increasingly being used in medicine, in biology, chemistry, and programming without the moral objections that come with its use in the arts. The opposition to AI Art is founded in not understanding the technology, fear of misuse, and inconsistent moral policing or fear of unemployment and future career prospects. \n\nEssentially, immediately after release the art community was on the defensive about the images generated by these models. Many people voiced moral objections that AI art is “stealing” or that what the model was doing was simply putting together a collage of other artists work. That what it was doing was not “real art.” Most of the people who object to it fundamentally do not understand how it works. \nThe other most common arguments revolve around moral inconsistency or simply holding art to a standard that is inconsistent.\n\n1) AI art is a collage of other pictures \n\nIt isn’t. This one is not even a tiny bit true. Diffusion models work by a neural network wherein the network is trained to recognize that a certain tag has a certain value and attempts to recreate that Diffusion models are a type of generative model that create data similar to the data they were trained on. They do this by gradually adding Gaussian noise to training data, then learning to recover the data by going in the opposite direction. You give it 100 pictures of an apple and then ask it to make a picture of an apple and it gives you a green spherical blob and you say “this is not an apple” and continue forwards until it can pretty confidently give you an apple most of the time. You do this with thousands of concepts until it can pretty convincingly come up with an apple as drawn by Leonardo Davinci on his lunch break. At no point did Leonardo draw an apple and there are no other images for it to stick together. The image is the first of its kind and has not existed prior to this. \n\nBut let’s assume for a moment that it is actually just a collage. Collage is a recognized art form and thus either what the model made is art or collage isn’t.\n\n2) AI steals artists work \n\nOnly if you believe that you are stealing when you look at someone’s work and attempt to get better at it by imitating their style at home and having someone constantly critique how close you are. Since style cannot be considered intellectual property this argument is likely proposing one of two things: (1) either the AI is using actual pieces of someone’s work (or is close enough that it could be considered theft) which is not what should be happening given the training and if it is we can fairly admit that this is a problem. (2) the AI retains artist work to use, which we know that it doesn’t as once training is complete it is using only itself. Regardless, surgeons aren’t marching in the street because robots are being trained on their images or surgeries. Programmers haven’t unionized to block AI development or refuse to paste their code to GitHub out of fear of AI taking their job. Programmers aren’t writing “poisoned code” to make sure that anything they develop is unusable by data scraping in the future. \n\nBut let’s say that this is theft. Using art to learn is theft because the artists did not consent to it. I have never seen an AI art opponent direct people to avoid SD, DALLE, MJ and to instead use Adobe or ShutterStock or Getty. Despite the fact that these sources used their own proprietary images and pay their artists. The second that an ethical source of AI images is found the goalpost is moved to “No AI art ever” despite the images now being “ethically sourced”\n\n3) Artists are losing their jobs \n\nYes. This sucks. Just like the combine harvester made many farmhands suddenly unemployed, just like a he printing press made individual scribes no longer necessary, low skill art has now been replaced. If the entirety of your art skill was making doodles and the company now has a machine that doodles at 100x the efficiency even with an objectively worse product then your job is going the way of the dodo. The highest level of skill for artists will always remain in demand and companies will continue to need artists to edit/refine/improve the AIs content but increasingly less. But the people who cry out against this have zero moral objection to the idea that truck drivers are soon going to be replaced. They have no complaints that surgery could very soon be done better by a robot. They don’t mind at all that a computer can likely calculate your taxes better than an accountant very soon. The people who object see truck drivers, doctors, and accountants as disposable but not artists. For some reason artists are untouchable. For some reason art is sacred. I find it morally reprehensible that people that are anti-AI are okay with AI replacing manual labor or essentially any other job except their domain. Art isn’t special, it’s not holy, it isn’t sacred. It is a skilled labor just like any other. And just like any skilled labor the democratization of that labor will displace those at the lowest skill levels. That’s not wrong or bad or evil. It means that those people now have to pursue other means of survival and that’s okay. Maybe their art can be better, maybe they can find a niche that suits them with specific clients, or maybe they can expand outwards and discover entirely new forms of art that do not require a corporate sponsor to perform. If anyone can now make an okay landscape in a few keystrokes doesn’t that mean that you can now make landscapes purely for love or enjoyment? Why should the entire world hold itself back for your career when you wouldn’t do the same for anyone else’s? \n\nAnd it’s frankly dumb to hold back a technology only because it harms your career prospects. Otherwise, let’s bring lamplighters and stone throwers back so we can wake up to get to work because machines shouldn’t be waking people up \n\n4) AI art can create objectionable things \n\nYes. With how quickly AI is evolving, very quickly you’ll be able to create a video of president trump and Biden taking turns punching a small child. This is is horrible. It’s is also something technology is 100% capable of doing right now. It’s actually something technology was capable of back in 1902 or even earlier. It’s easier now. So we should advocate for policy that all AI images should have markers that identify them as AI. But attempting to stop this technology will only force it underground where much less savory types will have free run. Making AI harmless with good policy is much better than shutting it down In a Butlerian Jihad. \n \n\nThe camera democratized image creation. It did not make painting obsolete, it simply added another medium to create. The mobile phone democratized the camera and did not make photographers obsolete. AI art has only further increased the ease of access to art. Previously unskilled people can now bring their thoughts and feelings to life in a way they previously could not. It will not make artists obsolete - it will simply give them one more tool",
"date": "2024-02-22",
"id": "1ax3iou",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: AI art is inevitable and opposition to it is based on selfishness or misplaced moral outrage",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1ax3iou/cmv_ai_art_is_inevitable_and_opposition_to_it_is/"
},
{
"author": "dbandroid",
"body": "Fundamentally, AI -generated images are not art and treating them as such is stupid.",
"date": "2024-02-22",
"id": "krlrj85",
"parent_id": "1ax3iou",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Hamza78ch11",
"body": "You’re not really engaging in good faith or actually answering anything that I posited",
"date": "2024-02-22",
"id": "krlrmdk",
"parent_id": "krlrj85",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Hamza78ch11",
"body": "\nLast years was incredible for the advancement of technology via the creation and public release of LLMs (like ChatGPT) and diffusion models like DALL-e, Stable Diffusion, and Midjourney. \nThe release of ChatGPT has widely been met with acclaim and support and while there are very valid criticisms - it seems that LLMs are very palatable to people in a way that the art models were not. However, even before then AI continues to advance steadily. We are getting closer to self driving cars, AI is increasingly being used in medicine, in biology, chemistry, and programming without the moral objections that come with its use in the arts. The opposition to AI Art is founded in not understanding the technology, fear of misuse, and inconsistent moral policing or fear of unemployment and future career prospects. \n\nEssentially, immediately after release the art community was on the defensive about the images generated by these models. Many people voiced moral objections that AI art is “stealing” or that what the model was doing was simply putting together a collage of other artists work. That what it was doing was not “real art.” Most of the people who object to it fundamentally do not understand how it works. \nThe other most common arguments revolve around moral inconsistency or simply holding art to a standard that is inconsistent.\n\n1) AI art is a collage of other pictures \n\nIt isn’t. This one is not even a tiny bit true. Diffusion models work by a neural network wherein the network is trained to recognize that a certain tag has a certain value and attempts to recreate that Diffusion models are a type of generative model that create data similar to the data they were trained on. They do this by gradually adding Gaussian noise to training data, then learning to recover the data by going in the opposite direction. You give it 100 pictures of an apple and then ask it to make a picture of an apple and it gives you a green spherical blob and you say “this is not an apple” and continue forwards until it can pretty confidently give you an apple most of the time. You do this with thousands of concepts until it can pretty convincingly come up with an apple as drawn by Leonardo Davinci on his lunch break. At no point did Leonardo draw an apple and there are no other images for it to stick together. The image is the first of its kind and has not existed prior to this. \n\nBut let’s assume for a moment that it is actually just a collage. Collage is a recognized art form and thus either what the model made is art or collage isn’t.\n\n2) AI steals artists work \n\nOnly if you believe that you are stealing when you look at someone’s work and attempt to get better at it by imitating their style at home and having someone constantly critique how close you are. Since style cannot be considered intellectual property this argument is likely proposing one of two things: (1) either the AI is using actual pieces of someone’s work (or is close enough that it could be considered theft) which is not what should be happening given the training and if it is we can fairly admit that this is a problem. (2) the AI retains artist work to use, which we know that it doesn’t as once training is complete it is using only itself. Regardless, surgeons aren’t marching in the street because robots are being trained on their images or surgeries. Programmers haven’t unionized to block AI development or refuse to paste their code to GitHub out of fear of AI taking their job. Programmers aren’t writing “poisoned code” to make sure that anything they develop is unusable by data scraping in the future. \n\nBut let’s say that this is theft. Using art to learn is theft because the artists did not consent to it. I have never seen an AI art opponent direct people to avoid SD, DALLE, MJ and to instead use Adobe or ShutterStock or Getty. Despite the fact that these sources used their own proprietary images and pay their artists. The second that an ethical source of AI images is found the goalpost is moved to “No AI art ever” despite the images now being “ethically sourced”\n\n3) Artists are losing their jobs \n\nYes. This sucks. Just like the combine harvester made many farmhands suddenly unemployed, just like a he printing press made individual scribes no longer necessary, low skill art has now been replaced. If the entirety of your art skill was making doodles and the company now has a machine that doodles at 100x the efficiency even with an objectively worse product then your job is going the way of the dodo. The highest level of skill for artists will always remain in demand and companies will continue to need artists to edit/refine/improve the AIs content but increasingly less. But the people who cry out against this have zero moral objection to the idea that truck drivers are soon going to be replaced. They have no complaints that surgery could very soon be done better by a robot. They don’t mind at all that a computer can likely calculate your taxes better than an accountant very soon. The people who object see truck drivers, doctors, and accountants as disposable but not artists. For some reason artists are untouchable. For some reason art is sacred. I find it morally reprehensible that people that are anti-AI are okay with AI replacing manual labor or essentially any other job except their domain. Art isn’t special, it’s not holy, it isn’t sacred. It is a skilled labor just like any other. And just like any skilled labor the democratization of that labor will displace those at the lowest skill levels. That’s not wrong or bad or evil. It means that those people now have to pursue other means of survival and that’s okay. Maybe their art can be better, maybe they can find a niche that suits them with specific clients, or maybe they can expand outwards and discover entirely new forms of art that do not require a corporate sponsor to perform. If anyone can now make an okay landscape in a few keystrokes doesn’t that mean that you can now make landscapes purely for love or enjoyment? Why should the entire world hold itself back for your career when you wouldn’t do the same for anyone else’s? \n\nAnd it’s frankly dumb to hold back a technology only because it harms your career prospects. Otherwise, let’s bring lamplighters and stone throwers back so we can wake up to get to work because machines shouldn’t be waking people up \n\n4) AI art can create objectionable things \n\nYes. With how quickly AI is evolving, very quickly you’ll be able to create a video of president trump and Biden taking turns punching a small child. This is is horrible. It’s is also something technology is 100% capable of doing right now. It’s actually something technology was capable of back in 1902 or even earlier. It’s easier now. So we should advocate for policy that all AI images should have markers that identify them as AI. But attempting to stop this technology will only force it underground where much less savory types will have free run. Making AI harmless with good policy is much better than shutting it down In a Butlerian Jihad. \n \n\nThe camera democratized image creation. It did not make painting obsolete, it simply added another medium to create. The mobile phone democratized the camera and did not make photographers obsolete. AI art has only further increased the ease of access to art. Previously unskilled people can now bring their thoughts and feelings to life in a way they previously could not. It will not make artists obsolete - it will simply give them one more tool",
"date": "2024-02-22",
"id": "1ax3iou",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: AI art is inevitable and opposition to it is based on selfishness or misplaced moral outrage",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1ax3iou/cmv_ai_art_is_inevitable_and_opposition_to_it_is/"
},
{
"author": "Siukslinis_acc",
"body": "I think deep down it is an existential crysis.\n\n>You know, the more I think about it, the more I believe that no-one is actually worried about AIs taking over the world or anything like that, no matter what they say. What they're really worried about is that someone might prove, once and for all, that consciousness can arise from matter. And I kind of understand why they find it so terrifying. If we can create a sentient being, where does that leave the soul? Without mystery, how can we see ourselves as anything other than machines? And if we are machines, what hope do we have that death is not the end?\n\n>What really scares people is not the artificial intelligence in the computer, but the \"natural\" intelligence they see in the mirror.\n\nWhen my friend and I talked about ai art one of their concerns was that they will not know if it was made by a human or not. Stuff being made by human is very important to them. They are making music and for them art is what makes one human. They do have a sort of an identity problem and I think art is making them feel human, so if art is no longer an unique human thing, they might lose their identity of being a human.\n\nWhile I am on a bit of a different philosophical mindset and don't see humans as being something unique and thus it doesn't bother me that the things we saw as uniquely human is no longer unique to humans. I don't care if I have a conversation with a human or an AI. Currently if I want a 100% human conversation, i go outside and interact irl with other humans.\n\nI remember people talking that art is an uniquely human thing. That art is what makes us human. So if a computer can do what is ascribed as uniquely human thing to do, then humans will no longer feel special.",
"date": "2024-02-22",
"id": "krltrze",
"parent_id": "1ax3iou",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Hamza78ch11",
"body": "\nLast years was incredible for the advancement of technology via the creation and public release of LLMs (like ChatGPT) and diffusion models like DALL-e, Stable Diffusion, and Midjourney. \nThe release of ChatGPT has widely been met with acclaim and support and while there are very valid criticisms - it seems that LLMs are very palatable to people in a way that the art models were not. However, even before then AI continues to advance steadily. We are getting closer to self driving cars, AI is increasingly being used in medicine, in biology, chemistry, and programming without the moral objections that come with its use in the arts. The opposition to AI Art is founded in not understanding the technology, fear of misuse, and inconsistent moral policing or fear of unemployment and future career prospects. \n\nEssentially, immediately after release the art community was on the defensive about the images generated by these models. Many people voiced moral objections that AI art is “stealing” or that what the model was doing was simply putting together a collage of other artists work. That what it was doing was not “real art.” Most of the people who object to it fundamentally do not understand how it works. \nThe other most common arguments revolve around moral inconsistency or simply holding art to a standard that is inconsistent.\n\n1) AI art is a collage of other pictures \n\nIt isn’t. This one is not even a tiny bit true. Diffusion models work by a neural network wherein the network is trained to recognize that a certain tag has a certain value and attempts to recreate that Diffusion models are a type of generative model that create data similar to the data they were trained on. They do this by gradually adding Gaussian noise to training data, then learning to recover the data by going in the opposite direction. You give it 100 pictures of an apple and then ask it to make a picture of an apple and it gives you a green spherical blob and you say “this is not an apple” and continue forwards until it can pretty confidently give you an apple most of the time. You do this with thousands of concepts until it can pretty convincingly come up with an apple as drawn by Leonardo Davinci on his lunch break. At no point did Leonardo draw an apple and there are no other images for it to stick together. The image is the first of its kind and has not existed prior to this. \n\nBut let’s assume for a moment that it is actually just a collage. Collage is a recognized art form and thus either what the model made is art or collage isn’t.\n\n2) AI steals artists work \n\nOnly if you believe that you are stealing when you look at someone’s work and attempt to get better at it by imitating their style at home and having someone constantly critique how close you are. Since style cannot be considered intellectual property this argument is likely proposing one of two things: (1) either the AI is using actual pieces of someone’s work (or is close enough that it could be considered theft) which is not what should be happening given the training and if it is we can fairly admit that this is a problem. (2) the AI retains artist work to use, which we know that it doesn’t as once training is complete it is using only itself. Regardless, surgeons aren’t marching in the street because robots are being trained on their images or surgeries. Programmers haven’t unionized to block AI development or refuse to paste their code to GitHub out of fear of AI taking their job. Programmers aren’t writing “poisoned code” to make sure that anything they develop is unusable by data scraping in the future. \n\nBut let’s say that this is theft. Using art to learn is theft because the artists did not consent to it. I have never seen an AI art opponent direct people to avoid SD, DALLE, MJ and to instead use Adobe or ShutterStock or Getty. Despite the fact that these sources used their own proprietary images and pay their artists. The second that an ethical source of AI images is found the goalpost is moved to “No AI art ever” despite the images now being “ethically sourced”\n\n3) Artists are losing their jobs \n\nYes. This sucks. Just like the combine harvester made many farmhands suddenly unemployed, just like a he printing press made individual scribes no longer necessary, low skill art has now been replaced. If the entirety of your art skill was making doodles and the company now has a machine that doodles at 100x the efficiency even with an objectively worse product then your job is going the way of the dodo. The highest level of skill for artists will always remain in demand and companies will continue to need artists to edit/refine/improve the AIs content but increasingly less. But the people who cry out against this have zero moral objection to the idea that truck drivers are soon going to be replaced. They have no complaints that surgery could very soon be done better by a robot. They don’t mind at all that a computer can likely calculate your taxes better than an accountant very soon. The people who object see truck drivers, doctors, and accountants as disposable but not artists. For some reason artists are untouchable. For some reason art is sacred. I find it morally reprehensible that people that are anti-AI are okay with AI replacing manual labor or essentially any other job except their domain. Art isn’t special, it’s not holy, it isn’t sacred. It is a skilled labor just like any other. And just like any skilled labor the democratization of that labor will displace those at the lowest skill levels. That’s not wrong or bad or evil. It means that those people now have to pursue other means of survival and that’s okay. Maybe their art can be better, maybe they can find a niche that suits them with specific clients, or maybe they can expand outwards and discover entirely new forms of art that do not require a corporate sponsor to perform. If anyone can now make an okay landscape in a few keystrokes doesn’t that mean that you can now make landscapes purely for love or enjoyment? Why should the entire world hold itself back for your career when you wouldn’t do the same for anyone else’s? \n\nAnd it’s frankly dumb to hold back a technology only because it harms your career prospects. Otherwise, let’s bring lamplighters and stone throwers back so we can wake up to get to work because machines shouldn’t be waking people up \n\n4) AI art can create objectionable things \n\nYes. With how quickly AI is evolving, very quickly you’ll be able to create a video of president trump and Biden taking turns punching a small child. This is is horrible. It’s is also something technology is 100% capable of doing right now. It’s actually something technology was capable of back in 1902 or even earlier. It’s easier now. So we should advocate for policy that all AI images should have markers that identify them as AI. But attempting to stop this technology will only force it underground where much less savory types will have free run. Making AI harmless with good policy is much better than shutting it down In a Butlerian Jihad. \n \n\nThe camera democratized image creation. It did not make painting obsolete, it simply added another medium to create. The mobile phone democratized the camera and did not make photographers obsolete. AI art has only further increased the ease of access to art. Previously unskilled people can now bring their thoughts and feelings to life in a way they previously could not. It will not make artists obsolete - it will simply give them one more tool",
"date": "2024-02-22",
"id": "1ax3iou",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: AI art is inevitable and opposition to it is based on selfishness or misplaced moral outrage",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1ax3iou/cmv_ai_art_is_inevitable_and_opposition_to_it_is/"
},
{
"author": "VertigoOne",
"body": ">Only if you believe that you are stealing when you look at someone’s work and attempt to get better at it by imitating their style at home and having someone constantly critique how close you are\n\nSee, this is the issue.\n\nWhen people make art, they accept the natural possibility of this because of the nature of art. Art is meant to be viewed by humans, so by extension there is no meaningful way to say \"do not be inspired by my work to create your own\" etc. We accept that by putting your art out into the world, that is an inevitablity.\n\nNo one accepted that it was \"inevitable\" that the art would be fed into a generative AI art machine and used as a tool for a machine to make more art.\n\nYou cannot infer from the fact that \"People are inspired by art to make more art\" that therefore \"Art can be used as a model for a machine to make more art\".\n\nArtists did not consent to that.",
"date": "2024-02-22",
"id": "krlzyft",
"parent_id": "1ax3iou",
"score": 5,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Hamza78ch11",
"body": "\nLast years was incredible for the advancement of technology via the creation and public release of LLMs (like ChatGPT) and diffusion models like DALL-e, Stable Diffusion, and Midjourney. \nThe release of ChatGPT has widely been met with acclaim and support and while there are very valid criticisms - it seems that LLMs are very palatable to people in a way that the art models were not. However, even before then AI continues to advance steadily. We are getting closer to self driving cars, AI is increasingly being used in medicine, in biology, chemistry, and programming without the moral objections that come with its use in the arts. The opposition to AI Art is founded in not understanding the technology, fear of misuse, and inconsistent moral policing or fear of unemployment and future career prospects. \n\nEssentially, immediately after release the art community was on the defensive about the images generated by these models. Many people voiced moral objections that AI art is “stealing” or that what the model was doing was simply putting together a collage of other artists work. That what it was doing was not “real art.” Most of the people who object to it fundamentally do not understand how it works. \nThe other most common arguments revolve around moral inconsistency or simply holding art to a standard that is inconsistent.\n\n1) AI art is a collage of other pictures \n\nIt isn’t. This one is not even a tiny bit true. Diffusion models work by a neural network wherein the network is trained to recognize that a certain tag has a certain value and attempts to recreate that Diffusion models are a type of generative model that create data similar to the data they were trained on. They do this by gradually adding Gaussian noise to training data, then learning to recover the data by going in the opposite direction. You give it 100 pictures of an apple and then ask it to make a picture of an apple and it gives you a green spherical blob and you say “this is not an apple” and continue forwards until it can pretty confidently give you an apple most of the time. You do this with thousands of concepts until it can pretty convincingly come up with an apple as drawn by Leonardo Davinci on his lunch break. At no point did Leonardo draw an apple and there are no other images for it to stick together. The image is the first of its kind and has not existed prior to this. \n\nBut let’s assume for a moment that it is actually just a collage. Collage is a recognized art form and thus either what the model made is art or collage isn’t.\n\n2) AI steals artists work \n\nOnly if you believe that you are stealing when you look at someone’s work and attempt to get better at it by imitating their style at home and having someone constantly critique how close you are. Since style cannot be considered intellectual property this argument is likely proposing one of two things: (1) either the AI is using actual pieces of someone’s work (or is close enough that it could be considered theft) which is not what should be happening given the training and if it is we can fairly admit that this is a problem. (2) the AI retains artist work to use, which we know that it doesn’t as once training is complete it is using only itself. Regardless, surgeons aren’t marching in the street because robots are being trained on their images or surgeries. Programmers haven’t unionized to block AI development or refuse to paste their code to GitHub out of fear of AI taking their job. Programmers aren’t writing “poisoned code” to make sure that anything they develop is unusable by data scraping in the future. \n\nBut let’s say that this is theft. Using art to learn is theft because the artists did not consent to it. I have never seen an AI art opponent direct people to avoid SD, DALLE, MJ and to instead use Adobe or ShutterStock or Getty. Despite the fact that these sources used their own proprietary images and pay their artists. The second that an ethical source of AI images is found the goalpost is moved to “No AI art ever” despite the images now being “ethically sourced”\n\n3) Artists are losing their jobs \n\nYes. This sucks. Just like the combine harvester made many farmhands suddenly unemployed, just like a he printing press made individual scribes no longer necessary, low skill art has now been replaced. If the entirety of your art skill was making doodles and the company now has a machine that doodles at 100x the efficiency even with an objectively worse product then your job is going the way of the dodo. The highest level of skill for artists will always remain in demand and companies will continue to need artists to edit/refine/improve the AIs content but increasingly less. But the people who cry out against this have zero moral objection to the idea that truck drivers are soon going to be replaced. They have no complaints that surgery could very soon be done better by a robot. They don’t mind at all that a computer can likely calculate your taxes better than an accountant very soon. The people who object see truck drivers, doctors, and accountants as disposable but not artists. For some reason artists are untouchable. For some reason art is sacred. I find it morally reprehensible that people that are anti-AI are okay with AI replacing manual labor or essentially any other job except their domain. Art isn’t special, it’s not holy, it isn’t sacred. It is a skilled labor just like any other. And just like any skilled labor the democratization of that labor will displace those at the lowest skill levels. That’s not wrong or bad or evil. It means that those people now have to pursue other means of survival and that’s okay. Maybe their art can be better, maybe they can find a niche that suits them with specific clients, or maybe they can expand outwards and discover entirely new forms of art that do not require a corporate sponsor to perform. If anyone can now make an okay landscape in a few keystrokes doesn’t that mean that you can now make landscapes purely for love or enjoyment? Why should the entire world hold itself back for your career when you wouldn’t do the same for anyone else’s? \n\nAnd it’s frankly dumb to hold back a technology only because it harms your career prospects. Otherwise, let’s bring lamplighters and stone throwers back so we can wake up to get to work because machines shouldn’t be waking people up \n\n4) AI art can create objectionable things \n\nYes. With how quickly AI is evolving, very quickly you’ll be able to create a video of president trump and Biden taking turns punching a small child. This is is horrible. It’s is also something technology is 100% capable of doing right now. It’s actually something technology was capable of back in 1902 or even earlier. It’s easier now. So we should advocate for policy that all AI images should have markers that identify them as AI. But attempting to stop this technology will only force it underground where much less savory types will have free run. Making AI harmless with good policy is much better than shutting it down In a Butlerian Jihad. \n \n\nThe camera democratized image creation. It did not make painting obsolete, it simply added another medium to create. The mobile phone democratized the camera and did not make photographers obsolete. AI art has only further increased the ease of access to art. Previously unskilled people can now bring their thoughts and feelings to life in a way they previously could not. It will not make artists obsolete - it will simply give them one more tool",
"date": "2024-02-22",
"id": "1ax3iou",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: AI art is inevitable and opposition to it is based on selfishness or misplaced moral outrage",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1ax3iou/cmv_ai_art_is_inevitable_and_opposition_to_it_is/"
},
{
"author": "deathbrusher",
"body": "I feel like AI art is much like taking credit for the meal when all you did was order from the menu.\n\nAI removes the human journey from art all in the cause of image generation.\n\nThe struggle and effort are the key aspects of why art is important because the process is what counts. AI removes it in favor of listening to what you're writing and virtually guessing what it should look like based upon art of which was fed to it, mostly involuntarily.",
"date": "2024-02-22",
"id": "krm3nc6",
"parent_id": "1ax3iou",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Hamza78ch11",
"body": "\nLast years was incredible for the advancement of technology via the creation and public release of LLMs (like ChatGPT) and diffusion models like DALL-e, Stable Diffusion, and Midjourney. \nThe release of ChatGPT has widely been met with acclaim and support and while there are very valid criticisms - it seems that LLMs are very palatable to people in a way that the art models were not. However, even before then AI continues to advance steadily. We are getting closer to self driving cars, AI is increasingly being used in medicine, in biology, chemistry, and programming without the moral objections that come with its use in the arts. The opposition to AI Art is founded in not understanding the technology, fear of misuse, and inconsistent moral policing or fear of unemployment and future career prospects. \n\nEssentially, immediately after release the art community was on the defensive about the images generated by these models. Many people voiced moral objections that AI art is “stealing” or that what the model was doing was simply putting together a collage of other artists work. That what it was doing was not “real art.” Most of the people who object to it fundamentally do not understand how it works. \nThe other most common arguments revolve around moral inconsistency or simply holding art to a standard that is inconsistent.\n\n1) AI art is a collage of other pictures \n\nIt isn’t. This one is not even a tiny bit true. Diffusion models work by a neural network wherein the network is trained to recognize that a certain tag has a certain value and attempts to recreate that Diffusion models are a type of generative model that create data similar to the data they were trained on. They do this by gradually adding Gaussian noise to training data, then learning to recover the data by going in the opposite direction. You give it 100 pictures of an apple and then ask it to make a picture of an apple and it gives you a green spherical blob and you say “this is not an apple” and continue forwards until it can pretty confidently give you an apple most of the time. You do this with thousands of concepts until it can pretty convincingly come up with an apple as drawn by Leonardo Davinci on his lunch break. At no point did Leonardo draw an apple and there are no other images for it to stick together. The image is the first of its kind and has not existed prior to this. \n\nBut let’s assume for a moment that it is actually just a collage. Collage is a recognized art form and thus either what the model made is art or collage isn’t.\n\n2) AI steals artists work \n\nOnly if you believe that you are stealing when you look at someone’s work and attempt to get better at it by imitating their style at home and having someone constantly critique how close you are. Since style cannot be considered intellectual property this argument is likely proposing one of two things: (1) either the AI is using actual pieces of someone’s work (or is close enough that it could be considered theft) which is not what should be happening given the training and if it is we can fairly admit that this is a problem. (2) the AI retains artist work to use, which we know that it doesn’t as once training is complete it is using only itself. Regardless, surgeons aren’t marching in the street because robots are being trained on their images or surgeries. Programmers haven’t unionized to block AI development or refuse to paste their code to GitHub out of fear of AI taking their job. Programmers aren’t writing “poisoned code” to make sure that anything they develop is unusable by data scraping in the future. \n\nBut let’s say that this is theft. Using art to learn is theft because the artists did not consent to it. I have never seen an AI art opponent direct people to avoid SD, DALLE, MJ and to instead use Adobe or ShutterStock or Getty. Despite the fact that these sources used their own proprietary images and pay their artists. The second that an ethical source of AI images is found the goalpost is moved to “No AI art ever” despite the images now being “ethically sourced”\n\n3) Artists are losing their jobs \n\nYes. This sucks. Just like the combine harvester made many farmhands suddenly unemployed, just like a he printing press made individual scribes no longer necessary, low skill art has now been replaced. If the entirety of your art skill was making doodles and the company now has a machine that doodles at 100x the efficiency even with an objectively worse product then your job is going the way of the dodo. The highest level of skill for artists will always remain in demand and companies will continue to need artists to edit/refine/improve the AIs content but increasingly less. But the people who cry out against this have zero moral objection to the idea that truck drivers are soon going to be replaced. They have no complaints that surgery could very soon be done better by a robot. They don’t mind at all that a computer can likely calculate your taxes better than an accountant very soon. The people who object see truck drivers, doctors, and accountants as disposable but not artists. For some reason artists are untouchable. For some reason art is sacred. I find it morally reprehensible that people that are anti-AI are okay with AI replacing manual labor or essentially any other job except their domain. Art isn’t special, it’s not holy, it isn’t sacred. It is a skilled labor just like any other. And just like any skilled labor the democratization of that labor will displace those at the lowest skill levels. That’s not wrong or bad or evil. It means that those people now have to pursue other means of survival and that’s okay. Maybe their art can be better, maybe they can find a niche that suits them with specific clients, or maybe they can expand outwards and discover entirely new forms of art that do not require a corporate sponsor to perform. If anyone can now make an okay landscape in a few keystrokes doesn’t that mean that you can now make landscapes purely for love or enjoyment? Why should the entire world hold itself back for your career when you wouldn’t do the same for anyone else’s? \n\nAnd it’s frankly dumb to hold back a technology only because it harms your career prospects. Otherwise, let’s bring lamplighters and stone throwers back so we can wake up to get to work because machines shouldn’t be waking people up \n\n4) AI art can create objectionable things \n\nYes. With how quickly AI is evolving, very quickly you’ll be able to create a video of president trump and Biden taking turns punching a small child. This is is horrible. It’s is also something technology is 100% capable of doing right now. It’s actually something technology was capable of back in 1902 or even earlier. It’s easier now. So we should advocate for policy that all AI images should have markers that identify them as AI. But attempting to stop this technology will only force it underground where much less savory types will have free run. Making AI harmless with good policy is much better than shutting it down In a Butlerian Jihad. \n \n\nThe camera democratized image creation. It did not make painting obsolete, it simply added another medium to create. The mobile phone democratized the camera and did not make photographers obsolete. AI art has only further increased the ease of access to art. Previously unskilled people can now bring their thoughts and feelings to life in a way they previously could not. It will not make artists obsolete - it will simply give them one more tool",
"date": "2024-02-22",
"id": "1ax3iou",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: AI art is inevitable and opposition to it is based on selfishness or misplaced moral outrage",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1ax3iou/cmv_ai_art_is_inevitable_and_opposition_to_it_is/"
},
{
"author": "ExcitingPotatoes",
"body": "You make good points but I think what's missing is the perspective of non-commercial artists and what value art offers to a society beyond its commercial applications.\n\nOutside of a corporate or commercial context, AI art is solving a problem that doesn't exist -- art isn't something that *needs* to be optimized or automated. Great art works are considered great because they're an expression and reflection of the human experience and human intention. That experience is not something that an algorithm can have, no matter how technically proficient and precise its output may be. \n\nI have no doubt an AI could generate something that could fool most into thinking it was made by a human. But the question is, why would you want that? Making art, even if you aren't trying to make something great, can be a blast and the process of creation itself can be one of the most fulfilling experiences available to us as humans. Trying to make an AI do it \"better\" makes no sense. A robot could probably play video games better than us, but what would be the point? Just to watch the robot have fun for you?\n\n>For some reason artists are untouchable. \n\nWell, art *is* categorically different than something like truck driving, for example, because it's more than just a job for many. People generally don't drive big rigs for hours a day just for recreational purposes. But people with a passion for art want to do it regardless of whether they earn a paycheck because it's fulfilling and it's a healthy outlet. I think creating a cultural attitude where aspiring artists are told they don't need to learn anything other than how to enter prompts into an AI effectively takes away the joy of creation.\n\nThe only reasonable purpose I could see for this kind of technology is in the corporate world or advertising, like stock images or web page backgrounds for example, or in upscaling old media.",
"date": "2024-02-22",
"id": "krnjzbm",
"parent_id": "1ax3iou",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Hamza78ch11",
"body": "\nLast years was incredible for the advancement of technology via the creation and public release of LLMs (like ChatGPT) and diffusion models like DALL-e, Stable Diffusion, and Midjourney. \nThe release of ChatGPT has widely been met with acclaim and support and while there are very valid criticisms - it seems that LLMs are very palatable to people in a way that the art models were not. However, even before then AI continues to advance steadily. We are getting closer to self driving cars, AI is increasingly being used in medicine, in biology, chemistry, and programming without the moral objections that come with its use in the arts. The opposition to AI Art is founded in not understanding the technology, fear of misuse, and inconsistent moral policing or fear of unemployment and future career prospects. \n\nEssentially, immediately after release the art community was on the defensive about the images generated by these models. Many people voiced moral objections that AI art is “stealing” or that what the model was doing was simply putting together a collage of other artists work. That what it was doing was not “real art.” Most of the people who object to it fundamentally do not understand how it works. \nThe other most common arguments revolve around moral inconsistency or simply holding art to a standard that is inconsistent.\n\n1) AI art is a collage of other pictures \n\nIt isn’t. This one is not even a tiny bit true. Diffusion models work by a neural network wherein the network is trained to recognize that a certain tag has a certain value and attempts to recreate that Diffusion models are a type of generative model that create data similar to the data they were trained on. They do this by gradually adding Gaussian noise to training data, then learning to recover the data by going in the opposite direction. You give it 100 pictures of an apple and then ask it to make a picture of an apple and it gives you a green spherical blob and you say “this is not an apple” and continue forwards until it can pretty confidently give you an apple most of the time. You do this with thousands of concepts until it can pretty convincingly come up with an apple as drawn by Leonardo Davinci on his lunch break. At no point did Leonardo draw an apple and there are no other images for it to stick together. The image is the first of its kind and has not existed prior to this. \n\nBut let’s assume for a moment that it is actually just a collage. Collage is a recognized art form and thus either what the model made is art or collage isn’t.\n\n2) AI steals artists work \n\nOnly if you believe that you are stealing when you look at someone’s work and attempt to get better at it by imitating their style at home and having someone constantly critique how close you are. Since style cannot be considered intellectual property this argument is likely proposing one of two things: (1) either the AI is using actual pieces of someone’s work (or is close enough that it could be considered theft) which is not what should be happening given the training and if it is we can fairly admit that this is a problem. (2) the AI retains artist work to use, which we know that it doesn’t as once training is complete it is using only itself. Regardless, surgeons aren’t marching in the street because robots are being trained on their images or surgeries. Programmers haven’t unionized to block AI development or refuse to paste their code to GitHub out of fear of AI taking their job. Programmers aren’t writing “poisoned code” to make sure that anything they develop is unusable by data scraping in the future. \n\nBut let’s say that this is theft. Using art to learn is theft because the artists did not consent to it. I have never seen an AI art opponent direct people to avoid SD, DALLE, MJ and to instead use Adobe or ShutterStock or Getty. Despite the fact that these sources used their own proprietary images and pay their artists. The second that an ethical source of AI images is found the goalpost is moved to “No AI art ever” despite the images now being “ethically sourced”\n\n3) Artists are losing their jobs \n\nYes. This sucks. Just like the combine harvester made many farmhands suddenly unemployed, just like a he printing press made individual scribes no longer necessary, low skill art has now been replaced. If the entirety of your art skill was making doodles and the company now has a machine that doodles at 100x the efficiency even with an objectively worse product then your job is going the way of the dodo. The highest level of skill for artists will always remain in demand and companies will continue to need artists to edit/refine/improve the AIs content but increasingly less. But the people who cry out against this have zero moral objection to the idea that truck drivers are soon going to be replaced. They have no complaints that surgery could very soon be done better by a robot. They don’t mind at all that a computer can likely calculate your taxes better than an accountant very soon. The people who object see truck drivers, doctors, and accountants as disposable but not artists. For some reason artists are untouchable. For some reason art is sacred. I find it morally reprehensible that people that are anti-AI are okay with AI replacing manual labor or essentially any other job except their domain. Art isn’t special, it’s not holy, it isn’t sacred. It is a skilled labor just like any other. And just like any skilled labor the democratization of that labor will displace those at the lowest skill levels. That’s not wrong or bad or evil. It means that those people now have to pursue other means of survival and that’s okay. Maybe their art can be better, maybe they can find a niche that suits them with specific clients, or maybe they can expand outwards and discover entirely new forms of art that do not require a corporate sponsor to perform. If anyone can now make an okay landscape in a few keystrokes doesn’t that mean that you can now make landscapes purely for love or enjoyment? Why should the entire world hold itself back for your career when you wouldn’t do the same for anyone else’s? \n\nAnd it’s frankly dumb to hold back a technology only because it harms your career prospects. Otherwise, let’s bring lamplighters and stone throwers back so we can wake up to get to work because machines shouldn’t be waking people up \n\n4) AI art can create objectionable things \n\nYes. With how quickly AI is evolving, very quickly you’ll be able to create a video of president trump and Biden taking turns punching a small child. This is is horrible. It’s is also something technology is 100% capable of doing right now. It’s actually something technology was capable of back in 1902 or even earlier. It’s easier now. So we should advocate for policy that all AI images should have markers that identify them as AI. But attempting to stop this technology will only force it underground where much less savory types will have free run. Making AI harmless with good policy is much better than shutting it down In a Butlerian Jihad. \n \n\nThe camera democratized image creation. It did not make painting obsolete, it simply added another medium to create. The mobile phone democratized the camera and did not make photographers obsolete. AI art has only further increased the ease of access to art. Previously unskilled people can now bring their thoughts and feelings to life in a way they previously could not. It will not make artists obsolete - it will simply give them one more tool",
"date": "2024-02-22",
"id": "1ax3iou",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: AI art is inevitable and opposition to it is based on selfishness or misplaced moral outrage",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1ax3iou/cmv_ai_art_is_inevitable_and_opposition_to_it_is/"
},
{
"author": "atxarchitect91",
"body": "AI will be a tool just like everything else but your defense of it seems more like you like using it and disparage people with the actual talent and don’t find them of value or understand art all that much. It is a degradation of culture by any estimation and your defense of it doesn’t understand how it will inevitably lead to people like yourself who over value technology in lieu of actual human-based skills and hard work.",
"date": "2024-02-22",
"id": "krpvd83",
"parent_id": "1ax3iou",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Hamza78ch11",
"body": "\nLast years was incredible for the advancement of technology via the creation and public release of LLMs (like ChatGPT) and diffusion models like DALL-e, Stable Diffusion, and Midjourney. \nThe release of ChatGPT has widely been met with acclaim and support and while there are very valid criticisms - it seems that LLMs are very palatable to people in a way that the art models were not. However, even before then AI continues to advance steadily. We are getting closer to self driving cars, AI is increasingly being used in medicine, in biology, chemistry, and programming without the moral objections that come with its use in the arts. The opposition to AI Art is founded in not understanding the technology, fear of misuse, and inconsistent moral policing or fear of unemployment and future career prospects. \n\nEssentially, immediately after release the art community was on the defensive about the images generated by these models. Many people voiced moral objections that AI art is “stealing” or that what the model was doing was simply putting together a collage of other artists work. That what it was doing was not “real art.” Most of the people who object to it fundamentally do not understand how it works. \nThe other most common arguments revolve around moral inconsistency or simply holding art to a standard that is inconsistent.\n\n1) AI art is a collage of other pictures \n\nIt isn’t. This one is not even a tiny bit true. Diffusion models work by a neural network wherein the network is trained to recognize that a certain tag has a certain value and attempts to recreate that Diffusion models are a type of generative model that create data similar to the data they were trained on. They do this by gradually adding Gaussian noise to training data, then learning to recover the data by going in the opposite direction. You give it 100 pictures of an apple and then ask it to make a picture of an apple and it gives you a green spherical blob and you say “this is not an apple” and continue forwards until it can pretty confidently give you an apple most of the time. You do this with thousands of concepts until it can pretty convincingly come up with an apple as drawn by Leonardo Davinci on his lunch break. At no point did Leonardo draw an apple and there are no other images for it to stick together. The image is the first of its kind and has not existed prior to this. \n\nBut let’s assume for a moment that it is actually just a collage. Collage is a recognized art form and thus either what the model made is art or collage isn’t.\n\n2) AI steals artists work \n\nOnly if you believe that you are stealing when you look at someone’s work and attempt to get better at it by imitating their style at home and having someone constantly critique how close you are. Since style cannot be considered intellectual property this argument is likely proposing one of two things: (1) either the AI is using actual pieces of someone’s work (or is close enough that it could be considered theft) which is not what should be happening given the training and if it is we can fairly admit that this is a problem. (2) the AI retains artist work to use, which we know that it doesn’t as once training is complete it is using only itself. Regardless, surgeons aren’t marching in the street because robots are being trained on their images or surgeries. Programmers haven’t unionized to block AI development or refuse to paste their code to GitHub out of fear of AI taking their job. Programmers aren’t writing “poisoned code” to make sure that anything they develop is unusable by data scraping in the future. \n\nBut let’s say that this is theft. Using art to learn is theft because the artists did not consent to it. I have never seen an AI art opponent direct people to avoid SD, DALLE, MJ and to instead use Adobe or ShutterStock or Getty. Despite the fact that these sources used their own proprietary images and pay their artists. The second that an ethical source of AI images is found the goalpost is moved to “No AI art ever” despite the images now being “ethically sourced”\n\n3) Artists are losing their jobs \n\nYes. This sucks. Just like the combine harvester made many farmhands suddenly unemployed, just like a he printing press made individual scribes no longer necessary, low skill art has now been replaced. If the entirety of your art skill was making doodles and the company now has a machine that doodles at 100x the efficiency even with an objectively worse product then your job is going the way of the dodo. The highest level of skill for artists will always remain in demand and companies will continue to need artists to edit/refine/improve the AIs content but increasingly less. But the people who cry out against this have zero moral objection to the idea that truck drivers are soon going to be replaced. They have no complaints that surgery could very soon be done better by a robot. They don’t mind at all that a computer can likely calculate your taxes better than an accountant very soon. The people who object see truck drivers, doctors, and accountants as disposable but not artists. For some reason artists are untouchable. For some reason art is sacred. I find it morally reprehensible that people that are anti-AI are okay with AI replacing manual labor or essentially any other job except their domain. Art isn’t special, it’s not holy, it isn’t sacred. It is a skilled labor just like any other. And just like any skilled labor the democratization of that labor will displace those at the lowest skill levels. That’s not wrong or bad or evil. It means that those people now have to pursue other means of survival and that’s okay. Maybe their art can be better, maybe they can find a niche that suits them with specific clients, or maybe they can expand outwards and discover entirely new forms of art that do not require a corporate sponsor to perform. If anyone can now make an okay landscape in a few keystrokes doesn’t that mean that you can now make landscapes purely for love or enjoyment? Why should the entire world hold itself back for your career when you wouldn’t do the same for anyone else’s? \n\nAnd it’s frankly dumb to hold back a technology only because it harms your career prospects. Otherwise, let’s bring lamplighters and stone throwers back so we can wake up to get to work because machines shouldn’t be waking people up \n\n4) AI art can create objectionable things \n\nYes. With how quickly AI is evolving, very quickly you’ll be able to create a video of president trump and Biden taking turns punching a small child. This is is horrible. It’s is also something technology is 100% capable of doing right now. It’s actually something technology was capable of back in 1902 or even earlier. It’s easier now. So we should advocate for policy that all AI images should have markers that identify them as AI. But attempting to stop this technology will only force it underground where much less savory types will have free run. Making AI harmless with good policy is much better than shutting it down In a Butlerian Jihad. \n \n\nThe camera democratized image creation. It did not make painting obsolete, it simply added another medium to create. The mobile phone democratized the camera and did not make photographers obsolete. AI art has only further increased the ease of access to art. Previously unskilled people can now bring their thoughts and feelings to life in a way they previously could not. It will not make artists obsolete - it will simply give them one more tool",
"date": "2024-02-22",
"id": "1ax3iou",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: AI art is inevitable and opposition to it is based on selfishness or misplaced moral outrage",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1ax3iou/cmv_ai_art_is_inevitable_and_opposition_to_it_is/"
},
{
"author": "zk_shadow",
"body": "Former software engineer here chiming in! ChatGPT has definitely changed my workflow quite a LOT (to the point that probably 60-70% of my code is machine generated). That's definitely also true on the image side of things with tools like Dall-E and Midjourney.\n\nShameless plug -- when my co-founder and I left our jobs several months ago, one of the areas we started exploring was adding a collaboration component (we used to work for a Notion competitor) to AI image generation. \n\nOne of the things we're adding in the next couple weeks is the ability for artists/creatives to monetize their own style (so artists would upload their own images that we can finetune our models with), and then monetize any images generated by models finetuned with the artists' own data.\n\nCurious if there's any interest? We're at [Shadow](https://www.withshadow.ai) & currently in our early days (in beta) and giving early users free credits. Please drop me a DM if you want to learn more or give feedback!",
"date": "2024-02-29",
"id": "kso201q",
"parent_id": "1ax3iou",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
]
]
| moderate |
[
{
"author": "garaile64",
"body": "Human diversity: different races, ethnic groups, sexual orientations, genders, religions... I had to be quite specific in the title because folks here often go just for the title.\n\nYugoslavia: that country was like a shirt owned by a person who had gained a lot of weight and Tito was the one button still keeping the shirt together. Tito's death was immediately followed by ethnic conflicts. If a country needs a dictatorship for people not to kill each other, these people are better off as separate countries.\n\nAfrica: some of the shitshow that happened on the continent since the departure of the colonizers is because these new countries' borders were deliberately made disregarding ethnic borders so the countries would have a hard time being their own thing. A country needs a common attribute for its populace to unite. It's easy for a more ethnically homogeneous country like Iceland or Slovenia, but harder for a more diverse country. Even diverse countries have one thing in common to create unity (Islam in Pakistan, vague ideals of freedom in the United States, whatever unites Canada, among others). However, the damage is already done, remaking the borders to match ethnic borders will only cause more wars.\n\nUnited States: the so-called \"melting pot\" (although this term has assimilationist implications), where people could (allegedly) be free, a country that is proud of its population of cosmopolitan origins. The United States initially didn't adopt an official language because of the non-British settlers. However, a lot of problems in the US are because of racism. The same country that didn't assign English as the official language nationwide because of settlers of other European countries also forced the indigenous populations to abandon their culture, forced Africans to become basically flesh machines, forced the then-newly-freed Black people into lesser roles and into basically a separate worse society, forced Filipinos to stop speaking Spanish, forced Hawai'ians to give up their language and culture, and now, despite being a nation built by immigrants, a lot of Americans hate immigrants. Now Indigenous people in the Americas deal with generational trauma so bad it's kinda in their genes, **incluing being unable to listen to a colonial language without triggering a trauma**. Also, American culture is apparently bland and boring so people identify with their ancestors' quite gatekeepy culture(s), making mixed-race people \"confused\" and have identity crises, like half of /mixedrace is angst over not fitting anywhere.\n\nEurope: mostly made-up of (somewhat) homogeneous countries, these countries have \"diversity\" mostly because of immigrants. The immigrants only go to Europe because Europe fucked up the rest of the world to the point of looking like a utopia by comparison, and the high quality of life depended and still depends on them fucking up the rest of the world even more. And Europe only \"needs\" immigrants because it has an economic system that relies on constant growth, there needs to be a lot of young workers to sustain the elderly population, and \"native\" Europeans aren't \"breeding\" fast enough for the market's liking (and are often too expensive for those stingy businesses).\n\nBrazil (maybe the rest of Latin America as well): often called \"racial democracy\". There is no racial harmony. Black and brown people are way more likely to be poor and Latin America has the worst wealth inequality in the world. Much of the miscegenation in Latin America comes from whitening policies and from the rape of Black and Indigenous women. This is why a lot of Black activists in Brazil think that miscegenation is genocide and that the word \"pardo\" (word commonly used for the mixed-race brown people) \"should only be used for paper and bears\".\n\nHave you noticed all those groups for Black/Asian/Latino/LGBT+ whatever, even for stuff that has nothing to do with race or sexuality (like constructed languages or gardening)? Being a minority makes people feel unsafe in \"general\" spaces just by being outnumbered, making \"good segregation\" necessary sometimes, and your very specific experiences get drowned by \"white\" or \"cis-het\" experiences. And that creates a vicious cycle where the \"general\" forums get more and more dominated by the majority population.\n\nAlso, have you seen children at a school? Kids bully each other over **anything**. This is why the alleged benefit of school unity of uniforms doesn't work. This is why a nation-wide list of approved names for newborns is pointless.",
"date": "2024-02-26",
"id": "1b0i14h",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Humans seem incapable of living with human diversity, so I don't see why diversity is good.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1b0i14h/cmv_humans_seem_incapable_of_living_with_human/"
},
{
"author": "JustDeetjies",
"body": "Uhm. Europe IS diverse??? Not just racially (through centuries of immigration and slavery for some) but also culturally??\n\nLike, those are multiple different cultures and national AND regional identities and being what we consider “white” not does not make them homogenous. \n\nIn fact, if you look at the xenophobia present in the UK for example, there is significant xenophobia against Eastern Europeans who would also be considered white now.\n\nA lot of the bigotry seen in many places is more closely tied to social factors such as economic status, sociopolitical factors and how various cultures and people are represented in media as opposed to some inherent or “natural” dislike of others. \n\nFurthermore many African nations have various cultures, ethnicities and religions within one nation and most do not have violence or hatred for those different peoples - unless it is tied to systemic treatment and oppression (usually division created by the colonialists such as the Hutus and Tutsis).\n\nFinally many “homogenous” nations have some serious issues around a plummeting and unsustainable birth rate, some have high rates of suicide and stagnant economies. Such as Japan and South Korea. \n\nSo there isn’t even evidence that homogeny guarantees a stable and happy society.",
"date": "2024-02-26",
"id": "ks7yyh1",
"parent_id": "1b0i14h",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "garaile64",
"body": "1- **Europe** is diverse. The individual countries are relatively homogeneous. There are exceptions like Belgium and Switzerland, but, for example, almost everyone in Poland is ethnically Polish and almost everyone in Slovenia is ethnically Slovene.\n\n2- I thought that colonizers only intensified the divide between Hutus and Tutsis instead of creating it.\n\n3- I'm pretty sure that Japan's and South Korea's suicide rates are mostly because of the overbearing work culture and other factors. But I understand if their cultural homogeneity contributes to their stagnation, especially for Japan, as it could force them to keep some outdated methods just because they are traditional. !delta",
"date": "2024-02-26",
"id": "ks83pmm",
"parent_id": "ks7yyh1",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "DeltaBot",
"body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/JustDeetjies ([1∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/JustDeetjies)).\n\n^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
"date": "2024-02-26",
"id": "ks83t3o",
"parent_id": "ks83pmm",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
]
| [
[
{
"author": "garaile64",
"body": "Human diversity: different races, ethnic groups, sexual orientations, genders, religions... I had to be quite specific in the title because folks here often go just for the title.\n\nYugoslavia: that country was like a shirt owned by a person who had gained a lot of weight and Tito was the one button still keeping the shirt together. Tito's death was immediately followed by ethnic conflicts. If a country needs a dictatorship for people not to kill each other, these people are better off as separate countries.\n\nAfrica: some of the shitshow that happened on the continent since the departure of the colonizers is because these new countries' borders were deliberately made disregarding ethnic borders so the countries would have a hard time being their own thing. A country needs a common attribute for its populace to unite. It's easy for a more ethnically homogeneous country like Iceland or Slovenia, but harder for a more diverse country. Even diverse countries have one thing in common to create unity (Islam in Pakistan, vague ideals of freedom in the United States, whatever unites Canada, among others). However, the damage is already done, remaking the borders to match ethnic borders will only cause more wars.\n\nUnited States: the so-called \"melting pot\" (although this term has assimilationist implications), where people could (allegedly) be free, a country that is proud of its population of cosmopolitan origins. The United States initially didn't adopt an official language because of the non-British settlers. However, a lot of problems in the US are because of racism. The same country that didn't assign English as the official language nationwide because of settlers of other European countries also forced the indigenous populations to abandon their culture, forced Africans to become basically flesh machines, forced the then-newly-freed Black people into lesser roles and into basically a separate worse society, forced Filipinos to stop speaking Spanish, forced Hawai'ians to give up their language and culture, and now, despite being a nation built by immigrants, a lot of Americans hate immigrants. Now Indigenous people in the Americas deal with generational trauma so bad it's kinda in their genes, **incluing being unable to listen to a colonial language without triggering a trauma**. Also, American culture is apparently bland and boring so people identify with their ancestors' quite gatekeepy culture(s), making mixed-race people \"confused\" and have identity crises, like half of /mixedrace is angst over not fitting anywhere.\n\nEurope: mostly made-up of (somewhat) homogeneous countries, these countries have \"diversity\" mostly because of immigrants. The immigrants only go to Europe because Europe fucked up the rest of the world to the point of looking like a utopia by comparison, and the high quality of life depended and still depends on them fucking up the rest of the world even more. And Europe only \"needs\" immigrants because it has an economic system that relies on constant growth, there needs to be a lot of young workers to sustain the elderly population, and \"native\" Europeans aren't \"breeding\" fast enough for the market's liking (and are often too expensive for those stingy businesses).\n\nBrazil (maybe the rest of Latin America as well): often called \"racial democracy\". There is no racial harmony. Black and brown people are way more likely to be poor and Latin America has the worst wealth inequality in the world. Much of the miscegenation in Latin America comes from whitening policies and from the rape of Black and Indigenous women. This is why a lot of Black activists in Brazil think that miscegenation is genocide and that the word \"pardo\" (word commonly used for the mixed-race brown people) \"should only be used for paper and bears\".\n\nHave you noticed all those groups for Black/Asian/Latino/LGBT+ whatever, even for stuff that has nothing to do with race or sexuality (like constructed languages or gardening)? Being a minority makes people feel unsafe in \"general\" spaces just by being outnumbered, making \"good segregation\" necessary sometimes, and your very specific experiences get drowned by \"white\" or \"cis-het\" experiences. And that creates a vicious cycle where the \"general\" forums get more and more dominated by the majority population.\n\nAlso, have you seen children at a school? Kids bully each other over **anything**. This is why the alleged benefit of school unity of uniforms doesn't work. This is why a nation-wide list of approved names for newborns is pointless.",
"date": "2024-02-26",
"id": "1b0i14h",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Humans seem incapable of living with human diversity, so I don't see why diversity is good.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1b0i14h/cmv_humans_seem_incapable_of_living_with_human/"
},
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": ">have you seen children at a school? Kids bully each other over **anything**.\n\nBut really think about this. Like think hard. Kids bully each other over anything. They don't bully because of ethnicity or gender or religion or race. They bully each other over anything. Literally anything. It's means they are not bigots or discriminatory. They pick any (literally any) trait and bully person over it. But if other person have that trait, they don't bully them because of it. They can be best friends with a red head but bully some other kid because they have red hair.\n\nBut adults are different. They generalize. All red heads should be bullied. All people from other countries should be shun. Adults are bigots. Kids accept anyone to play with them and even if they are stupid and bully each other over anything, they don't generalize.",
"date": "2024-02-26",
"id": "ks7uxdp",
"parent_id": "1b0i14h",
"score": 11,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "garaile64",
"body": "Human diversity: different races, ethnic groups, sexual orientations, genders, religions... I had to be quite specific in the title because folks here often go just for the title.\n\nYugoslavia: that country was like a shirt owned by a person who had gained a lot of weight and Tito was the one button still keeping the shirt together. Tito's death was immediately followed by ethnic conflicts. If a country needs a dictatorship for people not to kill each other, these people are better off as separate countries.\n\nAfrica: some of the shitshow that happened on the continent since the departure of the colonizers is because these new countries' borders were deliberately made disregarding ethnic borders so the countries would have a hard time being their own thing. A country needs a common attribute for its populace to unite. It's easy for a more ethnically homogeneous country like Iceland or Slovenia, but harder for a more diverse country. Even diverse countries have one thing in common to create unity (Islam in Pakistan, vague ideals of freedom in the United States, whatever unites Canada, among others). However, the damage is already done, remaking the borders to match ethnic borders will only cause more wars.\n\nUnited States: the so-called \"melting pot\" (although this term has assimilationist implications), where people could (allegedly) be free, a country that is proud of its population of cosmopolitan origins. The United States initially didn't adopt an official language because of the non-British settlers. However, a lot of problems in the US are because of racism. The same country that didn't assign English as the official language nationwide because of settlers of other European countries also forced the indigenous populations to abandon their culture, forced Africans to become basically flesh machines, forced the then-newly-freed Black people into lesser roles and into basically a separate worse society, forced Filipinos to stop speaking Spanish, forced Hawai'ians to give up their language and culture, and now, despite being a nation built by immigrants, a lot of Americans hate immigrants. Now Indigenous people in the Americas deal with generational trauma so bad it's kinda in their genes, **incluing being unable to listen to a colonial language without triggering a trauma**. Also, American culture is apparently bland and boring so people identify with their ancestors' quite gatekeepy culture(s), making mixed-race people \"confused\" and have identity crises, like half of /mixedrace is angst over not fitting anywhere.\n\nEurope: mostly made-up of (somewhat) homogeneous countries, these countries have \"diversity\" mostly because of immigrants. The immigrants only go to Europe because Europe fucked up the rest of the world to the point of looking like a utopia by comparison, and the high quality of life depended and still depends on them fucking up the rest of the world even more. And Europe only \"needs\" immigrants because it has an economic system that relies on constant growth, there needs to be a lot of young workers to sustain the elderly population, and \"native\" Europeans aren't \"breeding\" fast enough for the market's liking (and are often too expensive for those stingy businesses).\n\nBrazil (maybe the rest of Latin America as well): often called \"racial democracy\". There is no racial harmony. Black and brown people are way more likely to be poor and Latin America has the worst wealth inequality in the world. Much of the miscegenation in Latin America comes from whitening policies and from the rape of Black and Indigenous women. This is why a lot of Black activists in Brazil think that miscegenation is genocide and that the word \"pardo\" (word commonly used for the mixed-race brown people) \"should only be used for paper and bears\".\n\nHave you noticed all those groups for Black/Asian/Latino/LGBT+ whatever, even for stuff that has nothing to do with race or sexuality (like constructed languages or gardening)? Being a minority makes people feel unsafe in \"general\" spaces just by being outnumbered, making \"good segregation\" necessary sometimes, and your very specific experiences get drowned by \"white\" or \"cis-het\" experiences. And that creates a vicious cycle where the \"general\" forums get more and more dominated by the majority population.\n\nAlso, have you seen children at a school? Kids bully each other over **anything**. This is why the alleged benefit of school unity of uniforms doesn't work. This is why a nation-wide list of approved names for newborns is pointless.",
"date": "2024-02-26",
"id": "1b0i14h",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Humans seem incapable of living with human diversity, so I don't see why diversity is good.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1b0i14h/cmv_humans_seem_incapable_of_living_with_human/"
},
{
"author": "destro23",
"body": ">Humans seem incapable of living with human diversity.\n\nMy next door neighbor is a Muslim from Iraq who is married to an Irish-American lady. My across the street neighbor is Mexican. I am white, while my wife is black. We just got together to watch the SAG awards and good times were had by all. I've lived with diversity my entire life no problems. \n\n>I don't see why diversity is good.\n\n[Why Diversity and Inclusion Are Good for Business](https://online.uncp.edu/degrees/business/mba/general/diversity-and-inclusion-good-for-business/)\n\n[The Other Diversity Dividend - We know that varied teams make better decisions. A new study shows they also make better investments. ](https://hbr.org/2018/07/the-other-diversity-dividend)\n\n[Science benefits from diversity](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05326-3)\n\n[The Benefits of Inclusion and Diversity in the Classroom](https://soeonline.american.edu/blog/benefits-of-inclusion-and-diversity-in-the-classroom/)\n\n[People in more racially diverse neighborhoods are more prosocial.](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2018-13651-001)",
"date": "2024-02-26",
"id": "ks7v08o",
"parent_id": "1b0i14h",
"score": 25,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Bandage-Bob",
"body": "I am whiter than a Canadian winter and my fiancee is Korean.\n\nEach of us having a different cultural background allows us to have unique approaches and solutions to problems that neither of us would have come up with on our own.\n\nIt is one of the strongest aspects of our relationship.",
"date": "2024-02-26",
"id": "ks7zy8i",
"parent_id": "ks7v08o",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "garaile64",
"body": "Human diversity: different races, ethnic groups, sexual orientations, genders, religions... I had to be quite specific in the title because folks here often go just for the title.\n\nYugoslavia: that country was like a shirt owned by a person who had gained a lot of weight and Tito was the one button still keeping the shirt together. Tito's death was immediately followed by ethnic conflicts. If a country needs a dictatorship for people not to kill each other, these people are better off as separate countries.\n\nAfrica: some of the shitshow that happened on the continent since the departure of the colonizers is because these new countries' borders were deliberately made disregarding ethnic borders so the countries would have a hard time being their own thing. A country needs a common attribute for its populace to unite. It's easy for a more ethnically homogeneous country like Iceland or Slovenia, but harder for a more diverse country. Even diverse countries have one thing in common to create unity (Islam in Pakistan, vague ideals of freedom in the United States, whatever unites Canada, among others). However, the damage is already done, remaking the borders to match ethnic borders will only cause more wars.\n\nUnited States: the so-called \"melting pot\" (although this term has assimilationist implications), where people could (allegedly) be free, a country that is proud of its population of cosmopolitan origins. The United States initially didn't adopt an official language because of the non-British settlers. However, a lot of problems in the US are because of racism. The same country that didn't assign English as the official language nationwide because of settlers of other European countries also forced the indigenous populations to abandon their culture, forced Africans to become basically flesh machines, forced the then-newly-freed Black people into lesser roles and into basically a separate worse society, forced Filipinos to stop speaking Spanish, forced Hawai'ians to give up their language and culture, and now, despite being a nation built by immigrants, a lot of Americans hate immigrants. Now Indigenous people in the Americas deal with generational trauma so bad it's kinda in their genes, **incluing being unable to listen to a colonial language without triggering a trauma**. Also, American culture is apparently bland and boring so people identify with their ancestors' quite gatekeepy culture(s), making mixed-race people \"confused\" and have identity crises, like half of /mixedrace is angst over not fitting anywhere.\n\nEurope: mostly made-up of (somewhat) homogeneous countries, these countries have \"diversity\" mostly because of immigrants. The immigrants only go to Europe because Europe fucked up the rest of the world to the point of looking like a utopia by comparison, and the high quality of life depended and still depends on them fucking up the rest of the world even more. And Europe only \"needs\" immigrants because it has an economic system that relies on constant growth, there needs to be a lot of young workers to sustain the elderly population, and \"native\" Europeans aren't \"breeding\" fast enough for the market's liking (and are often too expensive for those stingy businesses).\n\nBrazil (maybe the rest of Latin America as well): often called \"racial democracy\". There is no racial harmony. Black and brown people are way more likely to be poor and Latin America has the worst wealth inequality in the world. Much of the miscegenation in Latin America comes from whitening policies and from the rape of Black and Indigenous women. This is why a lot of Black activists in Brazil think that miscegenation is genocide and that the word \"pardo\" (word commonly used for the mixed-race brown people) \"should only be used for paper and bears\".\n\nHave you noticed all those groups for Black/Asian/Latino/LGBT+ whatever, even for stuff that has nothing to do with race or sexuality (like constructed languages or gardening)? Being a minority makes people feel unsafe in \"general\" spaces just by being outnumbered, making \"good segregation\" necessary sometimes, and your very specific experiences get drowned by \"white\" or \"cis-het\" experiences. And that creates a vicious cycle where the \"general\" forums get more and more dominated by the majority population.\n\nAlso, have you seen children at a school? Kids bully each other over **anything**. This is why the alleged benefit of school unity of uniforms doesn't work. This is why a nation-wide list of approved names for newborns is pointless.",
"date": "2024-02-26",
"id": "1b0i14h",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Humans seem incapable of living with human diversity, so I don't see why diversity is good.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1b0i14h/cmv_humans_seem_incapable_of_living_with_human/"
},
{
"author": "Such-Lawyer2555",
"body": "Diversity makes sense at every level, from low, where genetic diversity works to avoid genetic anomalies, to large scale society where diversity of thought allows many perspectives to work together to solve huge problems.\n\n\nHomogeny is not natural, it is enforced. Some insects are homogenous, some single celled organisms. \n\n\nI don't want that for my life. ",
"date": "2024-02-26",
"id": "ks7v5k8",
"parent_id": "1b0i14h",
"score": 7,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "garaile64",
"body": "Human diversity: different races, ethnic groups, sexual orientations, genders, religions... I had to be quite specific in the title because folks here often go just for the title.\n\nYugoslavia: that country was like a shirt owned by a person who had gained a lot of weight and Tito was the one button still keeping the shirt together. Tito's death was immediately followed by ethnic conflicts. If a country needs a dictatorship for people not to kill each other, these people are better off as separate countries.\n\nAfrica: some of the shitshow that happened on the continent since the departure of the colonizers is because these new countries' borders were deliberately made disregarding ethnic borders so the countries would have a hard time being their own thing. A country needs a common attribute for its populace to unite. It's easy for a more ethnically homogeneous country like Iceland or Slovenia, but harder for a more diverse country. Even diverse countries have one thing in common to create unity (Islam in Pakistan, vague ideals of freedom in the United States, whatever unites Canada, among others). However, the damage is already done, remaking the borders to match ethnic borders will only cause more wars.\n\nUnited States: the so-called \"melting pot\" (although this term has assimilationist implications), where people could (allegedly) be free, a country that is proud of its population of cosmopolitan origins. The United States initially didn't adopt an official language because of the non-British settlers. However, a lot of problems in the US are because of racism. The same country that didn't assign English as the official language nationwide because of settlers of other European countries also forced the indigenous populations to abandon their culture, forced Africans to become basically flesh machines, forced the then-newly-freed Black people into lesser roles and into basically a separate worse society, forced Filipinos to stop speaking Spanish, forced Hawai'ians to give up their language and culture, and now, despite being a nation built by immigrants, a lot of Americans hate immigrants. Now Indigenous people in the Americas deal with generational trauma so bad it's kinda in their genes, **incluing being unable to listen to a colonial language without triggering a trauma**. Also, American culture is apparently bland and boring so people identify with their ancestors' quite gatekeepy culture(s), making mixed-race people \"confused\" and have identity crises, like half of /mixedrace is angst over not fitting anywhere.\n\nEurope: mostly made-up of (somewhat) homogeneous countries, these countries have \"diversity\" mostly because of immigrants. The immigrants only go to Europe because Europe fucked up the rest of the world to the point of looking like a utopia by comparison, and the high quality of life depended and still depends on them fucking up the rest of the world even more. And Europe only \"needs\" immigrants because it has an economic system that relies on constant growth, there needs to be a lot of young workers to sustain the elderly population, and \"native\" Europeans aren't \"breeding\" fast enough for the market's liking (and are often too expensive for those stingy businesses).\n\nBrazil (maybe the rest of Latin America as well): often called \"racial democracy\". There is no racial harmony. Black and brown people are way more likely to be poor and Latin America has the worst wealth inequality in the world. Much of the miscegenation in Latin America comes from whitening policies and from the rape of Black and Indigenous women. This is why a lot of Black activists in Brazil think that miscegenation is genocide and that the word \"pardo\" (word commonly used for the mixed-race brown people) \"should only be used for paper and bears\".\n\nHave you noticed all those groups for Black/Asian/Latino/LGBT+ whatever, even for stuff that has nothing to do with race or sexuality (like constructed languages or gardening)? Being a minority makes people feel unsafe in \"general\" spaces just by being outnumbered, making \"good segregation\" necessary sometimes, and your very specific experiences get drowned by \"white\" or \"cis-het\" experiences. And that creates a vicious cycle where the \"general\" forums get more and more dominated by the majority population.\n\nAlso, have you seen children at a school? Kids bully each other over **anything**. This is why the alleged benefit of school unity of uniforms doesn't work. This is why a nation-wide list of approved names for newborns is pointless.",
"date": "2024-02-26",
"id": "1b0i14h",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Humans seem incapable of living with human diversity, so I don't see why diversity is good.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1b0i14h/cmv_humans_seem_incapable_of_living_with_human/"
},
{
"author": "LucidMetal",
"body": "*Some* humans have difficulties dealing with people who are different than themselves. I argue the vast majority of people have no difficulty interacting with those who differ. This is a condition that is rooted in ignorance and luckily ignorance is a condition with both treatments and cures.\n\nWe already have the working solutions in front of us. What we lack is the motivation, especially among those who are resistant to diversity. \n\nThe interesting part to me is that you mention kids. It does start with children.\n\n1. Expose children to a high degree of diversity early and continue to do so often. \n2. Travel as far as one's budget allows. \n3. Make tertiary education generally taxpayer subsidized, especially for people of low socioeconomic status. \n4. Foster a culture which encourages leaving one's comfort zones.\n\nEach of these measures goes a long way in ensuring people learn to live with each other. Most importantly, together, they show that people are pretty much the same everywhere despite vast differences. \n\nOf course this is easier said than done because that initial group we're discussing is actively opposed to pretty much all of these measures.",
"date": "2024-02-26",
"id": "ks7wbzs",
"parent_id": "1b0i14h",
"score": 5,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "dot_dot_beep",
"body": ">Some \n> \n> humans have difficulties dealing with people who are different than themselves. \n\nAt this point, it should be a psychological disorder in the DSM. They're not capable of functioning in modern society, and are therefore psychologically dysfunctional.",
"date": "2024-02-26",
"id": "ks7z58y",
"parent_id": "ks7wbzs",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "garaile64",
"body": "Human diversity: different races, ethnic groups, sexual orientations, genders, religions... I had to be quite specific in the title because folks here often go just for the title.\n\nYugoslavia: that country was like a shirt owned by a person who had gained a lot of weight and Tito was the one button still keeping the shirt together. Tito's death was immediately followed by ethnic conflicts. If a country needs a dictatorship for people not to kill each other, these people are better off as separate countries.\n\nAfrica: some of the shitshow that happened on the continent since the departure of the colonizers is because these new countries' borders were deliberately made disregarding ethnic borders so the countries would have a hard time being their own thing. A country needs a common attribute for its populace to unite. It's easy for a more ethnically homogeneous country like Iceland or Slovenia, but harder for a more diverse country. Even diverse countries have one thing in common to create unity (Islam in Pakistan, vague ideals of freedom in the United States, whatever unites Canada, among others). However, the damage is already done, remaking the borders to match ethnic borders will only cause more wars.\n\nUnited States: the so-called \"melting pot\" (although this term has assimilationist implications), where people could (allegedly) be free, a country that is proud of its population of cosmopolitan origins. The United States initially didn't adopt an official language because of the non-British settlers. However, a lot of problems in the US are because of racism. The same country that didn't assign English as the official language nationwide because of settlers of other European countries also forced the indigenous populations to abandon their culture, forced Africans to become basically flesh machines, forced the then-newly-freed Black people into lesser roles and into basically a separate worse society, forced Filipinos to stop speaking Spanish, forced Hawai'ians to give up their language and culture, and now, despite being a nation built by immigrants, a lot of Americans hate immigrants. Now Indigenous people in the Americas deal with generational trauma so bad it's kinda in their genes, **incluing being unable to listen to a colonial language without triggering a trauma**. Also, American culture is apparently bland and boring so people identify with their ancestors' quite gatekeepy culture(s), making mixed-race people \"confused\" and have identity crises, like half of /mixedrace is angst over not fitting anywhere.\n\nEurope: mostly made-up of (somewhat) homogeneous countries, these countries have \"diversity\" mostly because of immigrants. The immigrants only go to Europe because Europe fucked up the rest of the world to the point of looking like a utopia by comparison, and the high quality of life depended and still depends on them fucking up the rest of the world even more. And Europe only \"needs\" immigrants because it has an economic system that relies on constant growth, there needs to be a lot of young workers to sustain the elderly population, and \"native\" Europeans aren't \"breeding\" fast enough for the market's liking (and are often too expensive for those stingy businesses).\n\nBrazil (maybe the rest of Latin America as well): often called \"racial democracy\". There is no racial harmony. Black and brown people are way more likely to be poor and Latin America has the worst wealth inequality in the world. Much of the miscegenation in Latin America comes from whitening policies and from the rape of Black and Indigenous women. This is why a lot of Black activists in Brazil think that miscegenation is genocide and that the word \"pardo\" (word commonly used for the mixed-race brown people) \"should only be used for paper and bears\".\n\nHave you noticed all those groups for Black/Asian/Latino/LGBT+ whatever, even for stuff that has nothing to do with race or sexuality (like constructed languages or gardening)? Being a minority makes people feel unsafe in \"general\" spaces just by being outnumbered, making \"good segregation\" necessary sometimes, and your very specific experiences get drowned by \"white\" or \"cis-het\" experiences. And that creates a vicious cycle where the \"general\" forums get more and more dominated by the majority population.\n\nAlso, have you seen children at a school? Kids bully each other over **anything**. This is why the alleged benefit of school unity of uniforms doesn't work. This is why a nation-wide list of approved names for newborns is pointless.",
"date": "2024-02-26",
"id": "1b0i14h",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Humans seem incapable of living with human diversity, so I don't see why diversity is good.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1b0i14h/cmv_humans_seem_incapable_of_living_with_human/"
},
{
"author": "T_Lawliet",
"body": "Let's take this maxim to its extreme: what if there was no diversity in humanity at all? What if everyone acted, looked and thought the same way? People would probably wouldn't be fighting each other all the time, sure, but they probably wouldn't have much of a reason to interact with each other much to begin with. \n\nDiversity means having people who think, act and behave differently. Sometimes this is due to biological reasons, like gender or simple DNA. But sometime it just means that diversity allows you to have different experiences, and that adds up to different skills, capabilities and perspectives. But why is this so important?\n\nWell, humans are social for a reason. We work best together. We come up with our greatest ideas together. And diversity is a huge part of that success, not just in humanity, but in evolution in general. [Natural selection](https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/what-is-natural-selection.html#:~:text=Natural%20selection%20is%20a%20mechanism,change%20and%20diverge%20over%20time) is just nature's way of expressing this principle. That's cause if you have people with diverse abilities, the group in general is capable of doing more and being more imaginative. Specialization is what allows complex societies to exist to begin with. \n\nWhy do you think dictators try their best to isolate and lock up their borders? Why do you think cult leaders try their best to isolate their members? Because diversity brings *change.* And while, yes, change has brought horrors onto humanity, its has brought far more benefits. And any benefit we can lay claim to is because people are different.",
"date": "2024-02-26",
"id": "ks7wcim",
"parent_id": "1b0i14h",
"score": 5,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "garaile64",
"body": "Human diversity: different races, ethnic groups, sexual orientations, genders, religions... I had to be quite specific in the title because folks here often go just for the title.\n\nYugoslavia: that country was like a shirt owned by a person who had gained a lot of weight and Tito was the one button still keeping the shirt together. Tito's death was immediately followed by ethnic conflicts. If a country needs a dictatorship for people not to kill each other, these people are better off as separate countries.\n\nAfrica: some of the shitshow that happened on the continent since the departure of the colonizers is because these new countries' borders were deliberately made disregarding ethnic borders so the countries would have a hard time being their own thing. A country needs a common attribute for its populace to unite. It's easy for a more ethnically homogeneous country like Iceland or Slovenia, but harder for a more diverse country. Even diverse countries have one thing in common to create unity (Islam in Pakistan, vague ideals of freedom in the United States, whatever unites Canada, among others). However, the damage is already done, remaking the borders to match ethnic borders will only cause more wars.\n\nUnited States: the so-called \"melting pot\" (although this term has assimilationist implications), where people could (allegedly) be free, a country that is proud of its population of cosmopolitan origins. The United States initially didn't adopt an official language because of the non-British settlers. However, a lot of problems in the US are because of racism. The same country that didn't assign English as the official language nationwide because of settlers of other European countries also forced the indigenous populations to abandon their culture, forced Africans to become basically flesh machines, forced the then-newly-freed Black people into lesser roles and into basically a separate worse society, forced Filipinos to stop speaking Spanish, forced Hawai'ians to give up their language and culture, and now, despite being a nation built by immigrants, a lot of Americans hate immigrants. Now Indigenous people in the Americas deal with generational trauma so bad it's kinda in their genes, **incluing being unable to listen to a colonial language without triggering a trauma**. Also, American culture is apparently bland and boring so people identify with their ancestors' quite gatekeepy culture(s), making mixed-race people \"confused\" and have identity crises, like half of /mixedrace is angst over not fitting anywhere.\n\nEurope: mostly made-up of (somewhat) homogeneous countries, these countries have \"diversity\" mostly because of immigrants. The immigrants only go to Europe because Europe fucked up the rest of the world to the point of looking like a utopia by comparison, and the high quality of life depended and still depends on them fucking up the rest of the world even more. And Europe only \"needs\" immigrants because it has an economic system that relies on constant growth, there needs to be a lot of young workers to sustain the elderly population, and \"native\" Europeans aren't \"breeding\" fast enough for the market's liking (and are often too expensive for those stingy businesses).\n\nBrazil (maybe the rest of Latin America as well): often called \"racial democracy\". There is no racial harmony. Black and brown people are way more likely to be poor and Latin America has the worst wealth inequality in the world. Much of the miscegenation in Latin America comes from whitening policies and from the rape of Black and Indigenous women. This is why a lot of Black activists in Brazil think that miscegenation is genocide and that the word \"pardo\" (word commonly used for the mixed-race brown people) \"should only be used for paper and bears\".\n\nHave you noticed all those groups for Black/Asian/Latino/LGBT+ whatever, even for stuff that has nothing to do with race or sexuality (like constructed languages or gardening)? Being a minority makes people feel unsafe in \"general\" spaces just by being outnumbered, making \"good segregation\" necessary sometimes, and your very specific experiences get drowned by \"white\" or \"cis-het\" experiences. And that creates a vicious cycle where the \"general\" forums get more and more dominated by the majority population.\n\nAlso, have you seen children at a school? Kids bully each other over **anything**. This is why the alleged benefit of school unity of uniforms doesn't work. This is why a nation-wide list of approved names for newborns is pointless.",
"date": "2024-02-26",
"id": "1b0i14h",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Humans seem incapable of living with human diversity, so I don't see why diversity is good.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1b0i14h/cmv_humans_seem_incapable_of_living_with_human/"
},
{
"author": "Ok_Size_9378",
"body": "You're correct but at the same time you're only looking for examples that confirm your view. E.g. I could see the Roman world through the lens of the many Civil wars and collapse but does that erase the experiences of the hundreds of millions who lived within it as a stable and diverse entity? \n\nDepending on how you want to count, billions today live in inhomogenous countries peacefully, and don't forget it was not many years ago that nations like Germany, Japan and Korea were not exactly bastions of peace and stability! Somalia today is vastly more unstable than India and so on.",
"date": "2024-02-26",
"id": "ks7xqfk",
"parent_id": "1b0i14h",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "garaile64",
"body": "Human diversity: different races, ethnic groups, sexual orientations, genders, religions... I had to be quite specific in the title because folks here often go just for the title.\n\nYugoslavia: that country was like a shirt owned by a person who had gained a lot of weight and Tito was the one button still keeping the shirt together. Tito's death was immediately followed by ethnic conflicts. If a country needs a dictatorship for people not to kill each other, these people are better off as separate countries.\n\nAfrica: some of the shitshow that happened on the continent since the departure of the colonizers is because these new countries' borders were deliberately made disregarding ethnic borders so the countries would have a hard time being their own thing. A country needs a common attribute for its populace to unite. It's easy for a more ethnically homogeneous country like Iceland or Slovenia, but harder for a more diverse country. Even diverse countries have one thing in common to create unity (Islam in Pakistan, vague ideals of freedom in the United States, whatever unites Canada, among others). However, the damage is already done, remaking the borders to match ethnic borders will only cause more wars.\n\nUnited States: the so-called \"melting pot\" (although this term has assimilationist implications), where people could (allegedly) be free, a country that is proud of its population of cosmopolitan origins. The United States initially didn't adopt an official language because of the non-British settlers. However, a lot of problems in the US are because of racism. The same country that didn't assign English as the official language nationwide because of settlers of other European countries also forced the indigenous populations to abandon their culture, forced Africans to become basically flesh machines, forced the then-newly-freed Black people into lesser roles and into basically a separate worse society, forced Filipinos to stop speaking Spanish, forced Hawai'ians to give up their language and culture, and now, despite being a nation built by immigrants, a lot of Americans hate immigrants. Now Indigenous people in the Americas deal with generational trauma so bad it's kinda in their genes, **incluing being unable to listen to a colonial language without triggering a trauma**. Also, American culture is apparently bland and boring so people identify with their ancestors' quite gatekeepy culture(s), making mixed-race people \"confused\" and have identity crises, like half of /mixedrace is angst over not fitting anywhere.\n\nEurope: mostly made-up of (somewhat) homogeneous countries, these countries have \"diversity\" mostly because of immigrants. The immigrants only go to Europe because Europe fucked up the rest of the world to the point of looking like a utopia by comparison, and the high quality of life depended and still depends on them fucking up the rest of the world even more. And Europe only \"needs\" immigrants because it has an economic system that relies on constant growth, there needs to be a lot of young workers to sustain the elderly population, and \"native\" Europeans aren't \"breeding\" fast enough for the market's liking (and are often too expensive for those stingy businesses).\n\nBrazil (maybe the rest of Latin America as well): often called \"racial democracy\". There is no racial harmony. Black and brown people are way more likely to be poor and Latin America has the worst wealth inequality in the world. Much of the miscegenation in Latin America comes from whitening policies and from the rape of Black and Indigenous women. This is why a lot of Black activists in Brazil think that miscegenation is genocide and that the word \"pardo\" (word commonly used for the mixed-race brown people) \"should only be used for paper and bears\".\n\nHave you noticed all those groups for Black/Asian/Latino/LGBT+ whatever, even for stuff that has nothing to do with race or sexuality (like constructed languages or gardening)? Being a minority makes people feel unsafe in \"general\" spaces just by being outnumbered, making \"good segregation\" necessary sometimes, and your very specific experiences get drowned by \"white\" or \"cis-het\" experiences. And that creates a vicious cycle where the \"general\" forums get more and more dominated by the majority population.\n\nAlso, have you seen children at a school? Kids bully each other over **anything**. This is why the alleged benefit of school unity of uniforms doesn't work. This is why a nation-wide list of approved names for newborns is pointless.",
"date": "2024-02-26",
"id": "1b0i14h",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Humans seem incapable of living with human diversity, so I don't see why diversity is good.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1b0i14h/cmv_humans_seem_incapable_of_living_with_human/"
},
{
"author": "chitterychimcharu",
"body": "I could replace the word diversity in your title with technology. Replace the text of your post with the horrors of industrial warfare and the logic of your argument would run exactly the same.\n\nDiversity is juice worth the squeeze. I'll allow that living in big diverse societies is not our natural mode but neither is shitting indoors or surviving a birth coming in breech position.\n\nTo hit a little towards your broader point about segregated societies being somewhat desirable I'll bring some scholarly info.\n\n\"Residents living among high proportions of out-group where the groups are integrated report an improvement in out-group attitudes. It is only residents living among large out-group populations where groups are more segregated from one another—at the nexus of high minority share and high segregation—who report colder out-group attitudes.\"\n\nhttps://academic.oup.com/sf/article/97/3/1029/5074547\n\nIt's an admittedly small evidence given the scope of my conclusion, diversity is a net positive, but seemed on theme for the post",
"date": "2024-02-26",
"id": "ks7z2te",
"parent_id": "1b0i14h",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "garaile64",
"body": "Human diversity: different races, ethnic groups, sexual orientations, genders, religions... I had to be quite specific in the title because folks here often go just for the title.\n\nYugoslavia: that country was like a shirt owned by a person who had gained a lot of weight and Tito was the one button still keeping the shirt together. Tito's death was immediately followed by ethnic conflicts. If a country needs a dictatorship for people not to kill each other, these people are better off as separate countries.\n\nAfrica: some of the shitshow that happened on the continent since the departure of the colonizers is because these new countries' borders were deliberately made disregarding ethnic borders so the countries would have a hard time being their own thing. A country needs a common attribute for its populace to unite. It's easy for a more ethnically homogeneous country like Iceland or Slovenia, but harder for a more diverse country. Even diverse countries have one thing in common to create unity (Islam in Pakistan, vague ideals of freedom in the United States, whatever unites Canada, among others). However, the damage is already done, remaking the borders to match ethnic borders will only cause more wars.\n\nUnited States: the so-called \"melting pot\" (although this term has assimilationist implications), where people could (allegedly) be free, a country that is proud of its population of cosmopolitan origins. The United States initially didn't adopt an official language because of the non-British settlers. However, a lot of problems in the US are because of racism. The same country that didn't assign English as the official language nationwide because of settlers of other European countries also forced the indigenous populations to abandon their culture, forced Africans to become basically flesh machines, forced the then-newly-freed Black people into lesser roles and into basically a separate worse society, forced Filipinos to stop speaking Spanish, forced Hawai'ians to give up their language and culture, and now, despite being a nation built by immigrants, a lot of Americans hate immigrants. Now Indigenous people in the Americas deal with generational trauma so bad it's kinda in their genes, **incluing being unable to listen to a colonial language without triggering a trauma**. Also, American culture is apparently bland and boring so people identify with their ancestors' quite gatekeepy culture(s), making mixed-race people \"confused\" and have identity crises, like half of /mixedrace is angst over not fitting anywhere.\n\nEurope: mostly made-up of (somewhat) homogeneous countries, these countries have \"diversity\" mostly because of immigrants. The immigrants only go to Europe because Europe fucked up the rest of the world to the point of looking like a utopia by comparison, and the high quality of life depended and still depends on them fucking up the rest of the world even more. And Europe only \"needs\" immigrants because it has an economic system that relies on constant growth, there needs to be a lot of young workers to sustain the elderly population, and \"native\" Europeans aren't \"breeding\" fast enough for the market's liking (and are often too expensive for those stingy businesses).\n\nBrazil (maybe the rest of Latin America as well): often called \"racial democracy\". There is no racial harmony. Black and brown people are way more likely to be poor and Latin America has the worst wealth inequality in the world. Much of the miscegenation in Latin America comes from whitening policies and from the rape of Black and Indigenous women. This is why a lot of Black activists in Brazil think that miscegenation is genocide and that the word \"pardo\" (word commonly used for the mixed-race brown people) \"should only be used for paper and bears\".\n\nHave you noticed all those groups for Black/Asian/Latino/LGBT+ whatever, even for stuff that has nothing to do with race or sexuality (like constructed languages or gardening)? Being a minority makes people feel unsafe in \"general\" spaces just by being outnumbered, making \"good segregation\" necessary sometimes, and your very specific experiences get drowned by \"white\" or \"cis-het\" experiences. And that creates a vicious cycle where the \"general\" forums get more and more dominated by the majority population.\n\nAlso, have you seen children at a school? Kids bully each other over **anything**. This is why the alleged benefit of school unity of uniforms doesn't work. This is why a nation-wide list of approved names for newborns is pointless.",
"date": "2024-02-26",
"id": "1b0i14h",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Humans seem incapable of living with human diversity, so I don't see why diversity is good.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1b0i14h/cmv_humans_seem_incapable_of_living_with_human/"
},
{
"author": "ProDavid_",
"body": "Malaysia: barely holds the majority of the population being Malay.\n\n>50.1% of the population are Malay, 22.6% are Chinese, 11.8% are indigenous Bumiputra groups other than the Malays, 6.7% are Indian, and other groups account for 0.7%.\n\nthere are mosques with *very* strong m/f segregation, side to side with hindu temples and catholic churches. as long as a woman doesnt \"demand\" to sight-see the male section of a mosque i havent experienced any other issues.\n\ngranted the regime is quite authoritarian, and heavily influenced by islam and conservative thinking, but the people themselves are very tolerant. i believe they have 3 official languages, with many dialects in between.\n\nthe biggest inequality is income, with chinese being 60% of the top 1%, but thats more a sign of chinese dominance in asia and less of intolerance.",
"date": "2024-02-26",
"id": "ks7zs90",
"parent_id": "1b0i14h",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "garaile64",
"body": "Human diversity: different races, ethnic groups, sexual orientations, genders, religions... I had to be quite specific in the title because folks here often go just for the title.\n\nYugoslavia: that country was like a shirt owned by a person who had gained a lot of weight and Tito was the one button still keeping the shirt together. Tito's death was immediately followed by ethnic conflicts. If a country needs a dictatorship for people not to kill each other, these people are better off as separate countries.\n\nAfrica: some of the shitshow that happened on the continent since the departure of the colonizers is because these new countries' borders were deliberately made disregarding ethnic borders so the countries would have a hard time being their own thing. A country needs a common attribute for its populace to unite. It's easy for a more ethnically homogeneous country like Iceland or Slovenia, but harder for a more diverse country. Even diverse countries have one thing in common to create unity (Islam in Pakistan, vague ideals of freedom in the United States, whatever unites Canada, among others). However, the damage is already done, remaking the borders to match ethnic borders will only cause more wars.\n\nUnited States: the so-called \"melting pot\" (although this term has assimilationist implications), where people could (allegedly) be free, a country that is proud of its population of cosmopolitan origins. The United States initially didn't adopt an official language because of the non-British settlers. However, a lot of problems in the US are because of racism. The same country that didn't assign English as the official language nationwide because of settlers of other European countries also forced the indigenous populations to abandon their culture, forced Africans to become basically flesh machines, forced the then-newly-freed Black people into lesser roles and into basically a separate worse society, forced Filipinos to stop speaking Spanish, forced Hawai'ians to give up their language and culture, and now, despite being a nation built by immigrants, a lot of Americans hate immigrants. Now Indigenous people in the Americas deal with generational trauma so bad it's kinda in their genes, **incluing being unable to listen to a colonial language without triggering a trauma**. Also, American culture is apparently bland and boring so people identify with their ancestors' quite gatekeepy culture(s), making mixed-race people \"confused\" and have identity crises, like half of /mixedrace is angst over not fitting anywhere.\n\nEurope: mostly made-up of (somewhat) homogeneous countries, these countries have \"diversity\" mostly because of immigrants. The immigrants only go to Europe because Europe fucked up the rest of the world to the point of looking like a utopia by comparison, and the high quality of life depended and still depends on them fucking up the rest of the world even more. And Europe only \"needs\" immigrants because it has an economic system that relies on constant growth, there needs to be a lot of young workers to sustain the elderly population, and \"native\" Europeans aren't \"breeding\" fast enough for the market's liking (and are often too expensive for those stingy businesses).\n\nBrazil (maybe the rest of Latin America as well): often called \"racial democracy\". There is no racial harmony. Black and brown people are way more likely to be poor and Latin America has the worst wealth inequality in the world. Much of the miscegenation in Latin America comes from whitening policies and from the rape of Black and Indigenous women. This is why a lot of Black activists in Brazil think that miscegenation is genocide and that the word \"pardo\" (word commonly used for the mixed-race brown people) \"should only be used for paper and bears\".\n\nHave you noticed all those groups for Black/Asian/Latino/LGBT+ whatever, even for stuff that has nothing to do with race or sexuality (like constructed languages or gardening)? Being a minority makes people feel unsafe in \"general\" spaces just by being outnumbered, making \"good segregation\" necessary sometimes, and your very specific experiences get drowned by \"white\" or \"cis-het\" experiences. And that creates a vicious cycle where the \"general\" forums get more and more dominated by the majority population.\n\nAlso, have you seen children at a school? Kids bully each other over **anything**. This is why the alleged benefit of school unity of uniforms doesn't work. This is why a nation-wide list of approved names for newborns is pointless.",
"date": "2024-02-26",
"id": "1b0i14h",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Humans seem incapable of living with human diversity, so I don't see why diversity is good.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1b0i14h/cmv_humans_seem_incapable_of_living_with_human/"
},
{
"author": "fkiceshower",
"body": "Diversity in the fundamental mathematical sense is a risk management strategy. In investing, there is a tool called the efficient frontier, which aims to ideally balance the returns with risk through diversification. In essence, it is a data distribution not too unlike the bell curve we see in many different sets of data. \n\n Deciding the ideal multidimensional macro diversity levels is likely a computational impossibility, however, it's not outlandish to assume that the data is distributed in a similar structure. This means we can draw some conclusions, such as smaller diversity levels being more efficient at delivering the beneficial aspects of diversity than higher diversity levels.",
"date": "2024-02-26",
"id": "ks7zstv",
"parent_id": "1b0i14h",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "garaile64",
"body": "Human diversity: different races, ethnic groups, sexual orientations, genders, religions... I had to be quite specific in the title because folks here often go just for the title.\n\nYugoslavia: that country was like a shirt owned by a person who had gained a lot of weight and Tito was the one button still keeping the shirt together. Tito's death was immediately followed by ethnic conflicts. If a country needs a dictatorship for people not to kill each other, these people are better off as separate countries.\n\nAfrica: some of the shitshow that happened on the continent since the departure of the colonizers is because these new countries' borders were deliberately made disregarding ethnic borders so the countries would have a hard time being their own thing. A country needs a common attribute for its populace to unite. It's easy for a more ethnically homogeneous country like Iceland or Slovenia, but harder for a more diverse country. Even diverse countries have one thing in common to create unity (Islam in Pakistan, vague ideals of freedom in the United States, whatever unites Canada, among others). However, the damage is already done, remaking the borders to match ethnic borders will only cause more wars.\n\nUnited States: the so-called \"melting pot\" (although this term has assimilationist implications), where people could (allegedly) be free, a country that is proud of its population of cosmopolitan origins. The United States initially didn't adopt an official language because of the non-British settlers. However, a lot of problems in the US are because of racism. The same country that didn't assign English as the official language nationwide because of settlers of other European countries also forced the indigenous populations to abandon their culture, forced Africans to become basically flesh machines, forced the then-newly-freed Black people into lesser roles and into basically a separate worse society, forced Filipinos to stop speaking Spanish, forced Hawai'ians to give up their language and culture, and now, despite being a nation built by immigrants, a lot of Americans hate immigrants. Now Indigenous people in the Americas deal with generational trauma so bad it's kinda in their genes, **incluing being unable to listen to a colonial language without triggering a trauma**. Also, American culture is apparently bland and boring so people identify with their ancestors' quite gatekeepy culture(s), making mixed-race people \"confused\" and have identity crises, like half of /mixedrace is angst over not fitting anywhere.\n\nEurope: mostly made-up of (somewhat) homogeneous countries, these countries have \"diversity\" mostly because of immigrants. The immigrants only go to Europe because Europe fucked up the rest of the world to the point of looking like a utopia by comparison, and the high quality of life depended and still depends on them fucking up the rest of the world even more. And Europe only \"needs\" immigrants because it has an economic system that relies on constant growth, there needs to be a lot of young workers to sustain the elderly population, and \"native\" Europeans aren't \"breeding\" fast enough for the market's liking (and are often too expensive for those stingy businesses).\n\nBrazil (maybe the rest of Latin America as well): often called \"racial democracy\". There is no racial harmony. Black and brown people are way more likely to be poor and Latin America has the worst wealth inequality in the world. Much of the miscegenation in Latin America comes from whitening policies and from the rape of Black and Indigenous women. This is why a lot of Black activists in Brazil think that miscegenation is genocide and that the word \"pardo\" (word commonly used for the mixed-race brown people) \"should only be used for paper and bears\".\n\nHave you noticed all those groups for Black/Asian/Latino/LGBT+ whatever, even for stuff that has nothing to do with race or sexuality (like constructed languages or gardening)? Being a minority makes people feel unsafe in \"general\" spaces just by being outnumbered, making \"good segregation\" necessary sometimes, and your very specific experiences get drowned by \"white\" or \"cis-het\" experiences. And that creates a vicious cycle where the \"general\" forums get more and more dominated by the majority population.\n\nAlso, have you seen children at a school? Kids bully each other over **anything**. This is why the alleged benefit of school unity of uniforms doesn't work. This is why a nation-wide list of approved names for newborns is pointless.",
"date": "2024-02-26",
"id": "1b0i14h",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Humans seem incapable of living with human diversity, so I don't see why diversity is good.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1b0i14h/cmv_humans_seem_incapable_of_living_with_human/"
},
{
"author": "Supergold_Soul",
"body": "Diversity is unavoidable. People will find ways to differentiate so as to place themselves higher in the supposed hierarchy. The conflicts that you speak about are less about the actual diversity present and more about the human desire to feel superior to the next person. You noted that even when there is forced conformity, (school uniforms) the same behavior presents itself. Diversity is not the cause of the conflict, the human ego is.",
"date": "2024-02-26",
"id": "ks805j9",
"parent_id": "1b0i14h",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "garaile64",
"body": "Human diversity: different races, ethnic groups, sexual orientations, genders, religions... I had to be quite specific in the title because folks here often go just for the title.\n\nYugoslavia: that country was like a shirt owned by a person who had gained a lot of weight and Tito was the one button still keeping the shirt together. Tito's death was immediately followed by ethnic conflicts. If a country needs a dictatorship for people not to kill each other, these people are better off as separate countries.\n\nAfrica: some of the shitshow that happened on the continent since the departure of the colonizers is because these new countries' borders were deliberately made disregarding ethnic borders so the countries would have a hard time being their own thing. A country needs a common attribute for its populace to unite. It's easy for a more ethnically homogeneous country like Iceland or Slovenia, but harder for a more diverse country. Even diverse countries have one thing in common to create unity (Islam in Pakistan, vague ideals of freedom in the United States, whatever unites Canada, among others). However, the damage is already done, remaking the borders to match ethnic borders will only cause more wars.\n\nUnited States: the so-called \"melting pot\" (although this term has assimilationist implications), where people could (allegedly) be free, a country that is proud of its population of cosmopolitan origins. The United States initially didn't adopt an official language because of the non-British settlers. However, a lot of problems in the US are because of racism. The same country that didn't assign English as the official language nationwide because of settlers of other European countries also forced the indigenous populations to abandon their culture, forced Africans to become basically flesh machines, forced the then-newly-freed Black people into lesser roles and into basically a separate worse society, forced Filipinos to stop speaking Spanish, forced Hawai'ians to give up their language and culture, and now, despite being a nation built by immigrants, a lot of Americans hate immigrants. Now Indigenous people in the Americas deal with generational trauma so bad it's kinda in their genes, **incluing being unable to listen to a colonial language without triggering a trauma**. Also, American culture is apparently bland and boring so people identify with their ancestors' quite gatekeepy culture(s), making mixed-race people \"confused\" and have identity crises, like half of /mixedrace is angst over not fitting anywhere.\n\nEurope: mostly made-up of (somewhat) homogeneous countries, these countries have \"diversity\" mostly because of immigrants. The immigrants only go to Europe because Europe fucked up the rest of the world to the point of looking like a utopia by comparison, and the high quality of life depended and still depends on them fucking up the rest of the world even more. And Europe only \"needs\" immigrants because it has an economic system that relies on constant growth, there needs to be a lot of young workers to sustain the elderly population, and \"native\" Europeans aren't \"breeding\" fast enough for the market's liking (and are often too expensive for those stingy businesses).\n\nBrazil (maybe the rest of Latin America as well): often called \"racial democracy\". There is no racial harmony. Black and brown people are way more likely to be poor and Latin America has the worst wealth inequality in the world. Much of the miscegenation in Latin America comes from whitening policies and from the rape of Black and Indigenous women. This is why a lot of Black activists in Brazil think that miscegenation is genocide and that the word \"pardo\" (word commonly used for the mixed-race brown people) \"should only be used for paper and bears\".\n\nHave you noticed all those groups for Black/Asian/Latino/LGBT+ whatever, even for stuff that has nothing to do with race or sexuality (like constructed languages or gardening)? Being a minority makes people feel unsafe in \"general\" spaces just by being outnumbered, making \"good segregation\" necessary sometimes, and your very specific experiences get drowned by \"white\" or \"cis-het\" experiences. And that creates a vicious cycle where the \"general\" forums get more and more dominated by the majority population.\n\nAlso, have you seen children at a school? Kids bully each other over **anything**. This is why the alleged benefit of school unity of uniforms doesn't work. This is why a nation-wide list of approved names for newborns is pointless.",
"date": "2024-02-26",
"id": "1b0i14h",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Humans seem incapable of living with human diversity, so I don't see why diversity is good.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1b0i14h/cmv_humans_seem_incapable_of_living_with_human/"
},
{
"author": "Eli-Had-A-Book-",
"body": "To clarify, in short are you saying because some people fight among others due to them being different, diversity isn’t good?",
"date": "2024-02-26",
"id": "ks80ku9",
"parent_id": "1b0i14h",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "decrpt",
"body": "Yeah, this is a really ridiculous post. Because racism exists, racism is good and diversity is bad?",
"date": "2024-02-26",
"id": "ks82zaj",
"parent_id": "ks80ku9",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "garaile64",
"body": "Human diversity: different races, ethnic groups, sexual orientations, genders, religions... I had to be quite specific in the title because folks here often go just for the title.\n\nYugoslavia: that country was like a shirt owned by a person who had gained a lot of weight and Tito was the one button still keeping the shirt together. Tito's death was immediately followed by ethnic conflicts. If a country needs a dictatorship for people not to kill each other, these people are better off as separate countries.\n\nAfrica: some of the shitshow that happened on the continent since the departure of the colonizers is because these new countries' borders were deliberately made disregarding ethnic borders so the countries would have a hard time being their own thing. A country needs a common attribute for its populace to unite. It's easy for a more ethnically homogeneous country like Iceland or Slovenia, but harder for a more diverse country. Even diverse countries have one thing in common to create unity (Islam in Pakistan, vague ideals of freedom in the United States, whatever unites Canada, among others). However, the damage is already done, remaking the borders to match ethnic borders will only cause more wars.\n\nUnited States: the so-called \"melting pot\" (although this term has assimilationist implications), where people could (allegedly) be free, a country that is proud of its population of cosmopolitan origins. The United States initially didn't adopt an official language because of the non-British settlers. However, a lot of problems in the US are because of racism. The same country that didn't assign English as the official language nationwide because of settlers of other European countries also forced the indigenous populations to abandon their culture, forced Africans to become basically flesh machines, forced the then-newly-freed Black people into lesser roles and into basically a separate worse society, forced Filipinos to stop speaking Spanish, forced Hawai'ians to give up their language and culture, and now, despite being a nation built by immigrants, a lot of Americans hate immigrants. Now Indigenous people in the Americas deal with generational trauma so bad it's kinda in their genes, **incluing being unable to listen to a colonial language without triggering a trauma**. Also, American culture is apparently bland and boring so people identify with their ancestors' quite gatekeepy culture(s), making mixed-race people \"confused\" and have identity crises, like half of /mixedrace is angst over not fitting anywhere.\n\nEurope: mostly made-up of (somewhat) homogeneous countries, these countries have \"diversity\" mostly because of immigrants. The immigrants only go to Europe because Europe fucked up the rest of the world to the point of looking like a utopia by comparison, and the high quality of life depended and still depends on them fucking up the rest of the world even more. And Europe only \"needs\" immigrants because it has an economic system that relies on constant growth, there needs to be a lot of young workers to sustain the elderly population, and \"native\" Europeans aren't \"breeding\" fast enough for the market's liking (and are often too expensive for those stingy businesses).\n\nBrazil (maybe the rest of Latin America as well): often called \"racial democracy\". There is no racial harmony. Black and brown people are way more likely to be poor and Latin America has the worst wealth inequality in the world. Much of the miscegenation in Latin America comes from whitening policies and from the rape of Black and Indigenous women. This is why a lot of Black activists in Brazil think that miscegenation is genocide and that the word \"pardo\" (word commonly used for the mixed-race brown people) \"should only be used for paper and bears\".\n\nHave you noticed all those groups for Black/Asian/Latino/LGBT+ whatever, even for stuff that has nothing to do with race or sexuality (like constructed languages or gardening)? Being a minority makes people feel unsafe in \"general\" spaces just by being outnumbered, making \"good segregation\" necessary sometimes, and your very specific experiences get drowned by \"white\" or \"cis-het\" experiences. And that creates a vicious cycle where the \"general\" forums get more and more dominated by the majority population.\n\nAlso, have you seen children at a school? Kids bully each other over **anything**. This is why the alleged benefit of school unity of uniforms doesn't work. This is why a nation-wide list of approved names for newborns is pointless.",
"date": "2024-02-26",
"id": "1b0i14h",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Humans seem incapable of living with human diversity, so I don't see why diversity is good.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1b0i14h/cmv_humans_seem_incapable_of_living_with_human/"
},
{
"author": "bikesexually",
"body": "Racists are racist so why shouldn't I be?\n\nDamaged people act in irrational ways so it must be human nature?\n\nKids are trying to figure out how society works and some of them are jerks so it must be human nature?\n\nYou examples and reasoning here are pretty scarce and thin. Fact is we are all individuals and just because someone puts one foot forwards to act as part of a group doesn't mean their other foot wouldn't get them ostracized from the same group. There is no 'one identity' that people embody. Everyone has many facets and aspects to their personality. Fascism is where everyone pretends to be the same and all are hurt by it.",
"date": "2024-02-26",
"id": "ks842lz",
"parent_id": "1b0i14h",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
]
]
| challenge |
[
{
"author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
"body": "During my last therapy session about a week ago, I originally proposed only messaging a woman I like (this is not about a specific situation, just in general) for scheduling dates. My therapist said I actually don't have to do that; I can and perhaps should message the woman for the sake of messaging, and just wanting to get to know her more is already enough reason to message her.\n\nMy main reason for my previous point of view: the most common advice people will give about crushes is to just talk with them directly. In a similar vein, it's always better to ask them out directly and communicate your feelings rather than trying to circumvent it by telling other people. One word comes to mind: efficency. My previous method of pursuing relationships in high school was by telling a bunch of my peers and using them as a vehicle to communicate my feelings for me, along with trying to manifest a relationship in my head. This often ended badly since it usually ended in a whole drama involving a million people that was not fun for anyone. That was not an efficient method of communicating my intentions since the transfer of information was not direct at all. Therefore, the better alternative would be to communicate my feelings more efficiently. How? By asking them out directly, cutting out all the extra buffonery, and communicating my intentions as fast and efficiently as possible.\n\nSuppose you want to build a highway between two cities. What do you do? Do you wind the road up mountain sloped and squiggle it around through valleys? No! That is not an efficient route between the two cities. Instead, you build bridges over the valleys and rivers and blast tunnels through the mountains to keep the highway as straight, flat, and efficient as possible for efficient transportation between both cities.\n\nPlus, imagine you have two types of cards you can play in pursuing a relationship. One card is a text conversation, and the other card is scheduling a date. Although both lead to the core of a relationship, which is \"getting to know each other\" (which I'll call relationship points for the sake of argument), they yield different values of relationship material. The text conversation card is immediate but yields less points, say, only 1 point. On the other hand, scheduling a date takes more time but yields more points, say, 10 points. Which card will I pick? I will pick the \"scheduling a date\" card, since, although it will take more time, it will yield more points in the end. One card just makes stuff, the other card makes stuff that can in turn be used to make even more stuff, therefore yielding more stuff in the end.\n\nMy other reason for only messaging when necessary (i.e. scheduling a date) are not wanting to come off as desperate. I feel like a lot of people complain about men saying \"hey\" because it's a dry and uninteresting opener, and there's not much to go off of. Therefore, a message such as \"Would you like to go on a date?\" might elicit more of a response. I also fear coming off as repetitive and thereby desperate. Let's say I ask a woman how her week was. Well, there will always be many many weeks, so every week I might as well how her week was every week. But then that would be very repetitive, and therefore coming off as desperate since I would be asking the same thing over and over and over again. I also fear coming off as the men on r/niceguys and sometimes r/texts who continually send messages over and over again without ever recieving a response. Therefore, I really only send messages when I deem it necessary so I don't come off as one of those desperate texters that people make fun of.\n\nCMV",
"date": "2024-02-27",
"id": "1b1syn3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: You should only message your crush when scheduling dates.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1b1syn3/cmv_you_should_only_message_your_crush_when/"
},
{
"author": "billbar",
"body": "Lol dude dating/love/relationships isn't at all the same as playing cards or building a city. You're viewing dating way too businesslike. To CMV: if you ONLY talk to your crush to plan dates, a lot of them will think that you don't really have feelings for them, or are only trying to have sex with them. The point of dating is to find someone you connect with, and you can't connect with someone if you don't... try and connect.\n\nYou could extend your 'efficiency' argument further and say the only thing you should talk about while you're with the other person is the relationship itself. How many kids you each want, where you want to live, when you want to get married, etc., but that's just not fun at all. You're SUPPOSED to talk about fun things and enjoy each other's company. Generally speaking in the beginning of a relationship, you don't spend every waking moment together, and chatting about things other than scheduling is a great way to 'spend time' with someone while you're not actually spending time with them.\n\nThe fact that you spent a paragraph talking about why telling everyone other than the person you like that you like that person (which is generally something everyone knows by the time they're 14-15 years old) means you have a shitload to learn about dating/relationships. My guess is you're a teenager?",
"date": "2024-02-27",
"id": "ksgvckq",
"parent_id": "1b1syn3",
"score": 33,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
"body": ">if you ONLY talk to your crush to plan dates, a lot of them will think that you don't really have feelings for them, or are only trying to have sex with them.\n\nThis is a great point. I agree that the \"only when necessary\" approach to texting might come off as disinterest and only in the relationship for the dates as opposed to the actual connection.\n\n>You could extend your 'efficiency' argument further and say the only thing you should talk about while you're with the other person is the relationship itself.\n\nThis is another great point and I agree that would not be fun at all because it is missing the actual connection. Perhaps relationships are more about commonality and shared experiences, and things such as kids, cohabitation, and dates only strengthen the connection.\n\n>Generally speaking in the beginning of a relationship, you don't spend every waking moment together, and chatting about things other than scheduling is a great way to 'spend time' with someone while you're not actually spending time with them.\n\nYep, I also agree that you generally don't spend every moment together in the early stages of a relationship. Mainly because people have different schedules and want time before spending more time together.\n\n!delta",
"date": "2024-02-27",
"id": "kshgp88",
"parent_id": "ksgvckq",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "DeltaBot",
"body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/billbar ([4∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/billbar)).\n\n^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
"date": "2024-02-27",
"id": "kshgsg2",
"parent_id": "kshgp88",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
]
| [
[
{
"author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
"body": "During my last therapy session about a week ago, I originally proposed only messaging a woman I like (this is not about a specific situation, just in general) for scheduling dates. My therapist said I actually don't have to do that; I can and perhaps should message the woman for the sake of messaging, and just wanting to get to know her more is already enough reason to message her.\n\nMy main reason for my previous point of view: the most common advice people will give about crushes is to just talk with them directly. In a similar vein, it's always better to ask them out directly and communicate your feelings rather than trying to circumvent it by telling other people. One word comes to mind: efficency. My previous method of pursuing relationships in high school was by telling a bunch of my peers and using them as a vehicle to communicate my feelings for me, along with trying to manifest a relationship in my head. This often ended badly since it usually ended in a whole drama involving a million people that was not fun for anyone. That was not an efficient method of communicating my intentions since the transfer of information was not direct at all. Therefore, the better alternative would be to communicate my feelings more efficiently. How? By asking them out directly, cutting out all the extra buffonery, and communicating my intentions as fast and efficiently as possible.\n\nSuppose you want to build a highway between two cities. What do you do? Do you wind the road up mountain sloped and squiggle it around through valleys? No! That is not an efficient route between the two cities. Instead, you build bridges over the valleys and rivers and blast tunnels through the mountains to keep the highway as straight, flat, and efficient as possible for efficient transportation between both cities.\n\nPlus, imagine you have two types of cards you can play in pursuing a relationship. One card is a text conversation, and the other card is scheduling a date. Although both lead to the core of a relationship, which is \"getting to know each other\" (which I'll call relationship points for the sake of argument), they yield different values of relationship material. The text conversation card is immediate but yields less points, say, only 1 point. On the other hand, scheduling a date takes more time but yields more points, say, 10 points. Which card will I pick? I will pick the \"scheduling a date\" card, since, although it will take more time, it will yield more points in the end. One card just makes stuff, the other card makes stuff that can in turn be used to make even more stuff, therefore yielding more stuff in the end.\n\nMy other reason for only messaging when necessary (i.e. scheduling a date) are not wanting to come off as desperate. I feel like a lot of people complain about men saying \"hey\" because it's a dry and uninteresting opener, and there's not much to go off of. Therefore, a message such as \"Would you like to go on a date?\" might elicit more of a response. I also fear coming off as repetitive and thereby desperate. Let's say I ask a woman how her week was. Well, there will always be many many weeks, so every week I might as well how her week was every week. But then that would be very repetitive, and therefore coming off as desperate since I would be asking the same thing over and over and over again. I also fear coming off as the men on r/niceguys and sometimes r/texts who continually send messages over and over again without ever recieving a response. Therefore, I really only send messages when I deem it necessary so I don't come off as one of those desperate texters that people make fun of.\n\nCMV",
"date": "2024-02-27",
"id": "1b1syn3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: You should only message your crush when scheduling dates.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1b1syn3/cmv_you_should_only_message_your_crush_when/"
},
{
"author": "LongDropSlowStop",
"body": "Human interaction isn't an optimization problem. If you actually like someone, interacting with them should be a benefit in and of itself. Not just a means to an end.",
"date": "2024-02-27",
"id": "ksgttn3",
"parent_id": "1b1syn3",
"score": 31,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Sulfamide",
"body": "Everything can be an optimization problem.\n\nBut I agree that given the complexity oh human relationships, wanting an optimal strategy is foolish.\n\nAlso, there’s liking and there’s liking. There are some people that I don’t like talking to but that I really want to fuck.\n\nLastly, even though OP framed it like an optimal strategy, I would say that the advice is good. I believe that there are very little situations where instant messaging isn’t simply the worst way to have a healthy happy with anybody.",
"date": "2024-02-28",
"id": "ksidqzj",
"parent_id": "ksgttn3",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
"body": "During my last therapy session about a week ago, I originally proposed only messaging a woman I like (this is not about a specific situation, just in general) for scheduling dates. My therapist said I actually don't have to do that; I can and perhaps should message the woman for the sake of messaging, and just wanting to get to know her more is already enough reason to message her.\n\nMy main reason for my previous point of view: the most common advice people will give about crushes is to just talk with them directly. In a similar vein, it's always better to ask them out directly and communicate your feelings rather than trying to circumvent it by telling other people. One word comes to mind: efficency. My previous method of pursuing relationships in high school was by telling a bunch of my peers and using them as a vehicle to communicate my feelings for me, along with trying to manifest a relationship in my head. This often ended badly since it usually ended in a whole drama involving a million people that was not fun for anyone. That was not an efficient method of communicating my intentions since the transfer of information was not direct at all. Therefore, the better alternative would be to communicate my feelings more efficiently. How? By asking them out directly, cutting out all the extra buffonery, and communicating my intentions as fast and efficiently as possible.\n\nSuppose you want to build a highway between two cities. What do you do? Do you wind the road up mountain sloped and squiggle it around through valleys? No! That is not an efficient route between the two cities. Instead, you build bridges over the valleys and rivers and blast tunnels through the mountains to keep the highway as straight, flat, and efficient as possible for efficient transportation between both cities.\n\nPlus, imagine you have two types of cards you can play in pursuing a relationship. One card is a text conversation, and the other card is scheduling a date. Although both lead to the core of a relationship, which is \"getting to know each other\" (which I'll call relationship points for the sake of argument), they yield different values of relationship material. The text conversation card is immediate but yields less points, say, only 1 point. On the other hand, scheduling a date takes more time but yields more points, say, 10 points. Which card will I pick? I will pick the \"scheduling a date\" card, since, although it will take more time, it will yield more points in the end. One card just makes stuff, the other card makes stuff that can in turn be used to make even more stuff, therefore yielding more stuff in the end.\n\nMy other reason for only messaging when necessary (i.e. scheduling a date) are not wanting to come off as desperate. I feel like a lot of people complain about men saying \"hey\" because it's a dry and uninteresting opener, and there's not much to go off of. Therefore, a message such as \"Would you like to go on a date?\" might elicit more of a response. I also fear coming off as repetitive and thereby desperate. Let's say I ask a woman how her week was. Well, there will always be many many weeks, so every week I might as well how her week was every week. But then that would be very repetitive, and therefore coming off as desperate since I would be asking the same thing over and over and over again. I also fear coming off as the men on r/niceguys and sometimes r/texts who continually send messages over and over again without ever recieving a response. Therefore, I really only send messages when I deem it necessary so I don't come off as one of those desperate texters that people make fun of.\n\nCMV",
"date": "2024-02-27",
"id": "1b1syn3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: You should only message your crush when scheduling dates.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1b1syn3/cmv_you_should_only_message_your_crush_when/"
},
{
"author": "Ballatik",
"body": "Isn’t the point of a date to share company and conversation for the sake of enjoyment and fostering connection? Aren’t other forms of communication such as messaging also capable of this?",
"date": "2024-02-27",
"id": "ksgvsef",
"parent_id": "1b1syn3",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Organic_Muffin280",
"body": "No",
"date": "2024-02-28",
"id": "ksi9k69",
"parent_id": "ksgvsef",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
"body": "During my last therapy session about a week ago, I originally proposed only messaging a woman I like (this is not about a specific situation, just in general) for scheduling dates. My therapist said I actually don't have to do that; I can and perhaps should message the woman for the sake of messaging, and just wanting to get to know her more is already enough reason to message her.\n\nMy main reason for my previous point of view: the most common advice people will give about crushes is to just talk with them directly. In a similar vein, it's always better to ask them out directly and communicate your feelings rather than trying to circumvent it by telling other people. One word comes to mind: efficency. My previous method of pursuing relationships in high school was by telling a bunch of my peers and using them as a vehicle to communicate my feelings for me, along with trying to manifest a relationship in my head. This often ended badly since it usually ended in a whole drama involving a million people that was not fun for anyone. That was not an efficient method of communicating my intentions since the transfer of information was not direct at all. Therefore, the better alternative would be to communicate my feelings more efficiently. How? By asking them out directly, cutting out all the extra buffonery, and communicating my intentions as fast and efficiently as possible.\n\nSuppose you want to build a highway between two cities. What do you do? Do you wind the road up mountain sloped and squiggle it around through valleys? No! That is not an efficient route between the two cities. Instead, you build bridges over the valleys and rivers and blast tunnels through the mountains to keep the highway as straight, flat, and efficient as possible for efficient transportation between both cities.\n\nPlus, imagine you have two types of cards you can play in pursuing a relationship. One card is a text conversation, and the other card is scheduling a date. Although both lead to the core of a relationship, which is \"getting to know each other\" (which I'll call relationship points for the sake of argument), they yield different values of relationship material. The text conversation card is immediate but yields less points, say, only 1 point. On the other hand, scheduling a date takes more time but yields more points, say, 10 points. Which card will I pick? I will pick the \"scheduling a date\" card, since, although it will take more time, it will yield more points in the end. One card just makes stuff, the other card makes stuff that can in turn be used to make even more stuff, therefore yielding more stuff in the end.\n\nMy other reason for only messaging when necessary (i.e. scheduling a date) are not wanting to come off as desperate. I feel like a lot of people complain about men saying \"hey\" because it's a dry and uninteresting opener, and there's not much to go off of. Therefore, a message such as \"Would you like to go on a date?\" might elicit more of a response. I also fear coming off as repetitive and thereby desperate. Let's say I ask a woman how her week was. Well, there will always be many many weeks, so every week I might as well how her week was every week. But then that would be very repetitive, and therefore coming off as desperate since I would be asking the same thing over and over and over again. I also fear coming off as the men on r/niceguys and sometimes r/texts who continually send messages over and over again without ever recieving a response. Therefore, I really only send messages when I deem it necessary so I don't come off as one of those desperate texters that people make fun of.\n\nCMV",
"date": "2024-02-27",
"id": "1b1syn3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: You should only message your crush when scheduling dates.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1b1syn3/cmv_you_should_only_message_your_crush_when/"
},
{
"author": "ApprehensiveSquash4",
"body": "Why can't you do both?",
"date": "2024-02-27",
"id": "ksgw79b",
"parent_id": "1b1syn3",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
"body": "During my last therapy session about a week ago, I originally proposed only messaging a woman I like (this is not about a specific situation, just in general) for scheduling dates. My therapist said I actually don't have to do that; I can and perhaps should message the woman for the sake of messaging, and just wanting to get to know her more is already enough reason to message her.\n\nMy main reason for my previous point of view: the most common advice people will give about crushes is to just talk with them directly. In a similar vein, it's always better to ask them out directly and communicate your feelings rather than trying to circumvent it by telling other people. One word comes to mind: efficency. My previous method of pursuing relationships in high school was by telling a bunch of my peers and using them as a vehicle to communicate my feelings for me, along with trying to manifest a relationship in my head. This often ended badly since it usually ended in a whole drama involving a million people that was not fun for anyone. That was not an efficient method of communicating my intentions since the transfer of information was not direct at all. Therefore, the better alternative would be to communicate my feelings more efficiently. How? By asking them out directly, cutting out all the extra buffonery, and communicating my intentions as fast and efficiently as possible.\n\nSuppose you want to build a highway between two cities. What do you do? Do you wind the road up mountain sloped and squiggle it around through valleys? No! That is not an efficient route between the two cities. Instead, you build bridges over the valleys and rivers and blast tunnels through the mountains to keep the highway as straight, flat, and efficient as possible for efficient transportation between both cities.\n\nPlus, imagine you have two types of cards you can play in pursuing a relationship. One card is a text conversation, and the other card is scheduling a date. Although both lead to the core of a relationship, which is \"getting to know each other\" (which I'll call relationship points for the sake of argument), they yield different values of relationship material. The text conversation card is immediate but yields less points, say, only 1 point. On the other hand, scheduling a date takes more time but yields more points, say, 10 points. Which card will I pick? I will pick the \"scheduling a date\" card, since, although it will take more time, it will yield more points in the end. One card just makes stuff, the other card makes stuff that can in turn be used to make even more stuff, therefore yielding more stuff in the end.\n\nMy other reason for only messaging when necessary (i.e. scheduling a date) are not wanting to come off as desperate. I feel like a lot of people complain about men saying \"hey\" because it's a dry and uninteresting opener, and there's not much to go off of. Therefore, a message such as \"Would you like to go on a date?\" might elicit more of a response. I also fear coming off as repetitive and thereby desperate. Let's say I ask a woman how her week was. Well, there will always be many many weeks, so every week I might as well how her week was every week. But then that would be very repetitive, and therefore coming off as desperate since I would be asking the same thing over and over and over again. I also fear coming off as the men on r/niceguys and sometimes r/texts who continually send messages over and over again without ever recieving a response. Therefore, I really only send messages when I deem it necessary so I don't come off as one of those desperate texters that people make fun of.\n\nCMV",
"date": "2024-02-27",
"id": "1b1syn3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: You should only message your crush when scheduling dates.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1b1syn3/cmv_you_should_only_message_your_crush_when/"
},
{
"author": "Tanaka917",
"body": "I feel like you're jumping from one extreme to the other with no pause for the middle. \n\nSo in highschool because you were unclear with your feelings and involved others it triggered a chain reaction of bad times. You've chosen to compensate for this by being as direct as possible with your feelings so as to leave no gap for confusion. Now I will say I agree being direct is good, and I will agree that in person will always be important.\n\nThe thing you might not be considering is that texting is in fact a method of communication you can use while still being rather direct. It's not necessary to be coy over text. Texting someone you like is enjoyable; there's a lot of room between hi and date. Granted it's easier to text the better you know someone and the more clear you are about what you mean to each other but it doesn't preclude texting. At some point you'll have to learn how to casual text enough to get by. \n\nFor instance one of my friends lives overseas. My night is her afternoon/evening therefore I wake up most days to some sort of meme hoard/voice note or video. Mostly something silly and fun she thinks I might like. There's nothing boring about it and I'd be rather sad if the only times we ever messaged was to schedule a call y'know?\n\nSo in summary, yes it's good to be direct but texting doesn't necessarily stop you from doing that. If you prefer in person do that but don't try to reduce it to a binary choice when it's really just another tool you can use for communication.",
"date": "2024-02-27",
"id": "ksgx5mx",
"parent_id": "1b1syn3",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
"body": "During my last therapy session about a week ago, I originally proposed only messaging a woman I like (this is not about a specific situation, just in general) for scheduling dates. My therapist said I actually don't have to do that; I can and perhaps should message the woman for the sake of messaging, and just wanting to get to know her more is already enough reason to message her.\n\nMy main reason for my previous point of view: the most common advice people will give about crushes is to just talk with them directly. In a similar vein, it's always better to ask them out directly and communicate your feelings rather than trying to circumvent it by telling other people. One word comes to mind: efficency. My previous method of pursuing relationships in high school was by telling a bunch of my peers and using them as a vehicle to communicate my feelings for me, along with trying to manifest a relationship in my head. This often ended badly since it usually ended in a whole drama involving a million people that was not fun for anyone. That was not an efficient method of communicating my intentions since the transfer of information was not direct at all. Therefore, the better alternative would be to communicate my feelings more efficiently. How? By asking them out directly, cutting out all the extra buffonery, and communicating my intentions as fast and efficiently as possible.\n\nSuppose you want to build a highway between two cities. What do you do? Do you wind the road up mountain sloped and squiggle it around through valleys? No! That is not an efficient route between the two cities. Instead, you build bridges over the valleys and rivers and blast tunnels through the mountains to keep the highway as straight, flat, and efficient as possible for efficient transportation between both cities.\n\nPlus, imagine you have two types of cards you can play in pursuing a relationship. One card is a text conversation, and the other card is scheduling a date. Although both lead to the core of a relationship, which is \"getting to know each other\" (which I'll call relationship points for the sake of argument), they yield different values of relationship material. The text conversation card is immediate but yields less points, say, only 1 point. On the other hand, scheduling a date takes more time but yields more points, say, 10 points. Which card will I pick? I will pick the \"scheduling a date\" card, since, although it will take more time, it will yield more points in the end. One card just makes stuff, the other card makes stuff that can in turn be used to make even more stuff, therefore yielding more stuff in the end.\n\nMy other reason for only messaging when necessary (i.e. scheduling a date) are not wanting to come off as desperate. I feel like a lot of people complain about men saying \"hey\" because it's a dry and uninteresting opener, and there's not much to go off of. Therefore, a message such as \"Would you like to go on a date?\" might elicit more of a response. I also fear coming off as repetitive and thereby desperate. Let's say I ask a woman how her week was. Well, there will always be many many weeks, so every week I might as well how her week was every week. But then that would be very repetitive, and therefore coming off as desperate since I would be asking the same thing over and over and over again. I also fear coming off as the men on r/niceguys and sometimes r/texts who continually send messages over and over again without ever recieving a response. Therefore, I really only send messages when I deem it necessary so I don't come off as one of those desperate texters that people make fun of.\n\nCMV",
"date": "2024-02-27",
"id": "1b1syn3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: You should only message your crush when scheduling dates.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1b1syn3/cmv_you_should_only_message_your_crush_when/"
},
{
"author": "manatorn",
"body": "The trouble with that perspective, my friend, is that it relies on the consistency of the landscape.",
"date": "2024-02-27",
"id": "ksh1bht",
"parent_id": "1b1syn3",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
"body": "During my last therapy session about a week ago, I originally proposed only messaging a woman I like (this is not about a specific situation, just in general) for scheduling dates. My therapist said I actually don't have to do that; I can and perhaps should message the woman for the sake of messaging, and just wanting to get to know her more is already enough reason to message her.\n\nMy main reason for my previous point of view: the most common advice people will give about crushes is to just talk with them directly. In a similar vein, it's always better to ask them out directly and communicate your feelings rather than trying to circumvent it by telling other people. One word comes to mind: efficency. My previous method of pursuing relationships in high school was by telling a bunch of my peers and using them as a vehicle to communicate my feelings for me, along with trying to manifest a relationship in my head. This often ended badly since it usually ended in a whole drama involving a million people that was not fun for anyone. That was not an efficient method of communicating my intentions since the transfer of information was not direct at all. Therefore, the better alternative would be to communicate my feelings more efficiently. How? By asking them out directly, cutting out all the extra buffonery, and communicating my intentions as fast and efficiently as possible.\n\nSuppose you want to build a highway between two cities. What do you do? Do you wind the road up mountain sloped and squiggle it around through valleys? No! That is not an efficient route between the two cities. Instead, you build bridges over the valleys and rivers and blast tunnels through the mountains to keep the highway as straight, flat, and efficient as possible for efficient transportation between both cities.\n\nPlus, imagine you have two types of cards you can play in pursuing a relationship. One card is a text conversation, and the other card is scheduling a date. Although both lead to the core of a relationship, which is \"getting to know each other\" (which I'll call relationship points for the sake of argument), they yield different values of relationship material. The text conversation card is immediate but yields less points, say, only 1 point. On the other hand, scheduling a date takes more time but yields more points, say, 10 points. Which card will I pick? I will pick the \"scheduling a date\" card, since, although it will take more time, it will yield more points in the end. One card just makes stuff, the other card makes stuff that can in turn be used to make even more stuff, therefore yielding more stuff in the end.\n\nMy other reason for only messaging when necessary (i.e. scheduling a date) are not wanting to come off as desperate. I feel like a lot of people complain about men saying \"hey\" because it's a dry and uninteresting opener, and there's not much to go off of. Therefore, a message such as \"Would you like to go on a date?\" might elicit more of a response. I also fear coming off as repetitive and thereby desperate. Let's say I ask a woman how her week was. Well, there will always be many many weeks, so every week I might as well how her week was every week. But then that would be very repetitive, and therefore coming off as desperate since I would be asking the same thing over and over and over again. I also fear coming off as the men on r/niceguys and sometimes r/texts who continually send messages over and over again without ever recieving a response. Therefore, I really only send messages when I deem it necessary so I don't come off as one of those desperate texters that people make fun of.\n\nCMV",
"date": "2024-02-27",
"id": "1b1syn3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: You should only message your crush when scheduling dates.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1b1syn3/cmv_you_should_only_message_your_crush_when/"
},
{
"author": "NoVaFlipFlops",
"body": "As a woman, if you ONLY messaged me to schedule dates I would wonder if you even liked me. If I decided you did like me and you kept this up, I would think you see me as just a reliable activity partner. I would also point out to you that you ought to listen to your therapist. They don't give straight up advice or personal opinions unless they think you can handle it (ie accept it without taking it personally) and if they think you are about to mess things up. It's nice you seem to trust her that she's not arguing with you for the sake of arguing or something. But just trust her. ",
"date": "2024-02-27",
"id": "ksh2l34",
"parent_id": "1b1syn3",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Organic_Muffin280",
"body": "Or you just tell her upfront you never text",
"date": "2024-02-28",
"id": "ksi9i0p",
"parent_id": "ksh2l34",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
"body": "During my last therapy session about a week ago, I originally proposed only messaging a woman I like (this is not about a specific situation, just in general) for scheduling dates. My therapist said I actually don't have to do that; I can and perhaps should message the woman for the sake of messaging, and just wanting to get to know her more is already enough reason to message her.\n\nMy main reason for my previous point of view: the most common advice people will give about crushes is to just talk with them directly. In a similar vein, it's always better to ask them out directly and communicate your feelings rather than trying to circumvent it by telling other people. One word comes to mind: efficency. My previous method of pursuing relationships in high school was by telling a bunch of my peers and using them as a vehicle to communicate my feelings for me, along with trying to manifest a relationship in my head. This often ended badly since it usually ended in a whole drama involving a million people that was not fun for anyone. That was not an efficient method of communicating my intentions since the transfer of information was not direct at all. Therefore, the better alternative would be to communicate my feelings more efficiently. How? By asking them out directly, cutting out all the extra buffonery, and communicating my intentions as fast and efficiently as possible.\n\nSuppose you want to build a highway between two cities. What do you do? Do you wind the road up mountain sloped and squiggle it around through valleys? No! That is not an efficient route between the two cities. Instead, you build bridges over the valleys and rivers and blast tunnels through the mountains to keep the highway as straight, flat, and efficient as possible for efficient transportation between both cities.\n\nPlus, imagine you have two types of cards you can play in pursuing a relationship. One card is a text conversation, and the other card is scheduling a date. Although both lead to the core of a relationship, which is \"getting to know each other\" (which I'll call relationship points for the sake of argument), they yield different values of relationship material. The text conversation card is immediate but yields less points, say, only 1 point. On the other hand, scheduling a date takes more time but yields more points, say, 10 points. Which card will I pick? I will pick the \"scheduling a date\" card, since, although it will take more time, it will yield more points in the end. One card just makes stuff, the other card makes stuff that can in turn be used to make even more stuff, therefore yielding more stuff in the end.\n\nMy other reason for only messaging when necessary (i.e. scheduling a date) are not wanting to come off as desperate. I feel like a lot of people complain about men saying \"hey\" because it's a dry and uninteresting opener, and there's not much to go off of. Therefore, a message such as \"Would you like to go on a date?\" might elicit more of a response. I also fear coming off as repetitive and thereby desperate. Let's say I ask a woman how her week was. Well, there will always be many many weeks, so every week I might as well how her week was every week. But then that would be very repetitive, and therefore coming off as desperate since I would be asking the same thing over and over and over again. I also fear coming off as the men on r/niceguys and sometimes r/texts who continually send messages over and over again without ever recieving a response. Therefore, I really only send messages when I deem it necessary so I don't come off as one of those desperate texters that people make fun of.\n\nCMV",
"date": "2024-02-27",
"id": "1b1syn3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: You should only message your crush when scheduling dates.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1b1syn3/cmv_you_should_only_message_your_crush_when/"
},
{
"author": "Colleen_Hoover",
"body": "> What do you do? Do you wind the road up mountain sloped and squiggle it around through valleys? No! That is not an efficient route between the two cities. Instead, you build bridges over the valleys and rivers and blast tunnels through the mountains to keep the highway as straight, flat, and efficient as possible\n\nHave you ever driven through West Virginia or South America? I don't know what they're doing in Europe, but mountains are hard as shit to blast through for the sake of a road. In the civilized world, mountain roads slope and squiggle.",
"date": "2024-02-27",
"id": "ksh72aq",
"parent_id": "1b1syn3",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
"body": "During my last therapy session about a week ago, I originally proposed only messaging a woman I like (this is not about a specific situation, just in general) for scheduling dates. My therapist said I actually don't have to do that; I can and perhaps should message the woman for the sake of messaging, and just wanting to get to know her more is already enough reason to message her.\n\nMy main reason for my previous point of view: the most common advice people will give about crushes is to just talk with them directly. In a similar vein, it's always better to ask them out directly and communicate your feelings rather than trying to circumvent it by telling other people. One word comes to mind: efficency. My previous method of pursuing relationships in high school was by telling a bunch of my peers and using them as a vehicle to communicate my feelings for me, along with trying to manifest a relationship in my head. This often ended badly since it usually ended in a whole drama involving a million people that was not fun for anyone. That was not an efficient method of communicating my intentions since the transfer of information was not direct at all. Therefore, the better alternative would be to communicate my feelings more efficiently. How? By asking them out directly, cutting out all the extra buffonery, and communicating my intentions as fast and efficiently as possible.\n\nSuppose you want to build a highway between two cities. What do you do? Do you wind the road up mountain sloped and squiggle it around through valleys? No! That is not an efficient route between the two cities. Instead, you build bridges over the valleys and rivers and blast tunnels through the mountains to keep the highway as straight, flat, and efficient as possible for efficient transportation between both cities.\n\nPlus, imagine you have two types of cards you can play in pursuing a relationship. One card is a text conversation, and the other card is scheduling a date. Although both lead to the core of a relationship, which is \"getting to know each other\" (which I'll call relationship points for the sake of argument), they yield different values of relationship material. The text conversation card is immediate but yields less points, say, only 1 point. On the other hand, scheduling a date takes more time but yields more points, say, 10 points. Which card will I pick? I will pick the \"scheduling a date\" card, since, although it will take more time, it will yield more points in the end. One card just makes stuff, the other card makes stuff that can in turn be used to make even more stuff, therefore yielding more stuff in the end.\n\nMy other reason for only messaging when necessary (i.e. scheduling a date) are not wanting to come off as desperate. I feel like a lot of people complain about men saying \"hey\" because it's a dry and uninteresting opener, and there's not much to go off of. Therefore, a message such as \"Would you like to go on a date?\" might elicit more of a response. I also fear coming off as repetitive and thereby desperate. Let's say I ask a woman how her week was. Well, there will always be many many weeks, so every week I might as well how her week was every week. But then that would be very repetitive, and therefore coming off as desperate since I would be asking the same thing over and over and over again. I also fear coming off as the men on r/niceguys and sometimes r/texts who continually send messages over and over again without ever recieving a response. Therefore, I really only send messages when I deem it necessary so I don't come off as one of those desperate texters that people make fun of.\n\nCMV",
"date": "2024-02-27",
"id": "1b1syn3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: You should only message your crush when scheduling dates.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1b1syn3/cmv_you_should_only_message_your_crush_when/"
},
{
"author": "pavilionaire2022",
"body": ">Suppose you want to build a highway between two cities. What do you do? Do you wind the road up mountain sloped and squiggle it around through valleys? No! That is not an efficient route between the two cities. Instead, you build bridges over the valleys and rivers and blast tunnels through the mountains to keep the highway as straight, flat, and efficient as possible for efficient transportation between both cities.\n\nReasoning by analogy doesn't prove anything, but even your analogy fails. Different forms of transportation exist: cars, trains, planes, boats. All of them take some form of the most direct and efficient route, but all are useful for different purposes. You take a different form if you are in a hurry than if you're trying to save many or carry a lot of freight.\n\nIf you want to have a long conversation, by all means, save it for a date. If you just have a thought you think might be interesting to someone, they generally appreciate you letting them know you're thinking of them.\n\n>I also fear coming off as the men on r/niceguys and sometimes r/texts who continually send messages over and over again without ever recieving a response. Therefore, I really only send messages when I deem it necessary so I don't come off as one of those desperate texters that people make fun of.\n\nYou seem to be looking for a simple rule to avoid a faux pas, but being so rigid will be equally off-putting. Just match the energy of the other person. If you're messaging them a lot, and they aren't initiating messages with you, then maybe back off a bit.",
"date": "2024-02-27",
"id": "ksh9k7j",
"parent_id": "1b1syn3",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
"body": "During my last therapy session about a week ago, I originally proposed only messaging a woman I like (this is not about a specific situation, just in general) for scheduling dates. My therapist said I actually don't have to do that; I can and perhaps should message the woman for the sake of messaging, and just wanting to get to know her more is already enough reason to message her.\n\nMy main reason for my previous point of view: the most common advice people will give about crushes is to just talk with them directly. In a similar vein, it's always better to ask them out directly and communicate your feelings rather than trying to circumvent it by telling other people. One word comes to mind: efficency. My previous method of pursuing relationships in high school was by telling a bunch of my peers and using them as a vehicle to communicate my feelings for me, along with trying to manifest a relationship in my head. This often ended badly since it usually ended in a whole drama involving a million people that was not fun for anyone. That was not an efficient method of communicating my intentions since the transfer of information was not direct at all. Therefore, the better alternative would be to communicate my feelings more efficiently. How? By asking them out directly, cutting out all the extra buffonery, and communicating my intentions as fast and efficiently as possible.\n\nSuppose you want to build a highway between two cities. What do you do? Do you wind the road up mountain sloped and squiggle it around through valleys? No! That is not an efficient route between the two cities. Instead, you build bridges over the valleys and rivers and blast tunnels through the mountains to keep the highway as straight, flat, and efficient as possible for efficient transportation between both cities.\n\nPlus, imagine you have two types of cards you can play in pursuing a relationship. One card is a text conversation, and the other card is scheduling a date. Although both lead to the core of a relationship, which is \"getting to know each other\" (which I'll call relationship points for the sake of argument), they yield different values of relationship material. The text conversation card is immediate but yields less points, say, only 1 point. On the other hand, scheduling a date takes more time but yields more points, say, 10 points. Which card will I pick? I will pick the \"scheduling a date\" card, since, although it will take more time, it will yield more points in the end. One card just makes stuff, the other card makes stuff that can in turn be used to make even more stuff, therefore yielding more stuff in the end.\n\nMy other reason for only messaging when necessary (i.e. scheduling a date) are not wanting to come off as desperate. I feel like a lot of people complain about men saying \"hey\" because it's a dry and uninteresting opener, and there's not much to go off of. Therefore, a message such as \"Would you like to go on a date?\" might elicit more of a response. I also fear coming off as repetitive and thereby desperate. Let's say I ask a woman how her week was. Well, there will always be many many weeks, so every week I might as well how her week was every week. But then that would be very repetitive, and therefore coming off as desperate since I would be asking the same thing over and over and over again. I also fear coming off as the men on r/niceguys and sometimes r/texts who continually send messages over and over again without ever recieving a response. Therefore, I really only send messages when I deem it necessary so I don't come off as one of those desperate texters that people make fun of.\n\nCMV",
"date": "2024-02-27",
"id": "1b1syn3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: You should only message your crush when scheduling dates.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1b1syn3/cmv_you_should_only_message_your_crush_when/"
},
{
"author": "alpicola",
"body": ">My previous method of pursuing relationships in high school was by telling a bunch of my peers and using them as a vehicle to communicate my feelings for me, along with trying to manifest a relationship in my head.\n\n\nYeah... As you've discovered, don't do this. Talking directly to the person you want to go out with is better in just about every possible way. \n\n\n>My other reason for only messaging when necessary (i.e. scheduling a date) are not wanting to come off as desperate.\n\n\nIt depends. If you're having a real conversation, then carrying on that conversation isn't desperate, it's just having a conversation. If your messages are all a bunch of low/no value gibberish, or if you're trying to force a conversation that's clearly died, then yes, that's going to seem like desperation. I'm the early, middle, and late stages of dating, conversations are good.\n\n\n\n>Let's say I ask a woman how her week was. Well, there will always be many many weeks, so every week I might as well how her week was every week.\n\n\nIf asking her about her week is the total extent of your conversation with her, then looking desperate is probably the least of your problems. Ideally, you want to move on to having enough of an ongoing conversation that you already know how her week is without needing to explicitly ask. That said, assuming you only get to see her once a week, asking about her week isn't a bad way to start up the conversation, provided you actually care about her answer. \n\n\n>I also fear coming off as the men on r/niceguys and sometimes r/texts who continually send messages over and over again without ever recieving a response. \n\n\nYeah, so don't do that. You can usually tell when a conversation dies, and it's easy enough to confirm when a follow up message a day or so later also goes unanswered.\n\n\n>Therefore, I really only send messages when I deem it necessary so I don't come off as one of those desperate texters that people make fun of.\n\n\nWorry less about appearances and more about connections. The kinds of chats that get posted on reddit come because people fail to make a connection and fail to realize that they've failed. Arbitrary texting rules are a great way to *cause* missed connections. You'll be far more successful if you forget the rules and learn how to read the room.",
"date": "2024-02-27",
"id": "kshd2hv",
"parent_id": "1b1syn3",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
"body": "During my last therapy session about a week ago, I originally proposed only messaging a woman I like (this is not about a specific situation, just in general) for scheduling dates. My therapist said I actually don't have to do that; I can and perhaps should message the woman for the sake of messaging, and just wanting to get to know her more is already enough reason to message her.\n\nMy main reason for my previous point of view: the most common advice people will give about crushes is to just talk with them directly. In a similar vein, it's always better to ask them out directly and communicate your feelings rather than trying to circumvent it by telling other people. One word comes to mind: efficency. My previous method of pursuing relationships in high school was by telling a bunch of my peers and using them as a vehicle to communicate my feelings for me, along with trying to manifest a relationship in my head. This often ended badly since it usually ended in a whole drama involving a million people that was not fun for anyone. That was not an efficient method of communicating my intentions since the transfer of information was not direct at all. Therefore, the better alternative would be to communicate my feelings more efficiently. How? By asking them out directly, cutting out all the extra buffonery, and communicating my intentions as fast and efficiently as possible.\n\nSuppose you want to build a highway between two cities. What do you do? Do you wind the road up mountain sloped and squiggle it around through valleys? No! That is not an efficient route between the two cities. Instead, you build bridges over the valleys and rivers and blast tunnels through the mountains to keep the highway as straight, flat, and efficient as possible for efficient transportation between both cities.\n\nPlus, imagine you have two types of cards you can play in pursuing a relationship. One card is a text conversation, and the other card is scheduling a date. Although both lead to the core of a relationship, which is \"getting to know each other\" (which I'll call relationship points for the sake of argument), they yield different values of relationship material. The text conversation card is immediate but yields less points, say, only 1 point. On the other hand, scheduling a date takes more time but yields more points, say, 10 points. Which card will I pick? I will pick the \"scheduling a date\" card, since, although it will take more time, it will yield more points in the end. One card just makes stuff, the other card makes stuff that can in turn be used to make even more stuff, therefore yielding more stuff in the end.\n\nMy other reason for only messaging when necessary (i.e. scheduling a date) are not wanting to come off as desperate. I feel like a lot of people complain about men saying \"hey\" because it's a dry and uninteresting opener, and there's not much to go off of. Therefore, a message such as \"Would you like to go on a date?\" might elicit more of a response. I also fear coming off as repetitive and thereby desperate. Let's say I ask a woman how her week was. Well, there will always be many many weeks, so every week I might as well how her week was every week. But then that would be very repetitive, and therefore coming off as desperate since I would be asking the same thing over and over and over again. I also fear coming off as the men on r/niceguys and sometimes r/texts who continually send messages over and over again without ever recieving a response. Therefore, I really only send messages when I deem it necessary so I don't come off as one of those desperate texters that people make fun of.\n\nCMV",
"date": "2024-02-27",
"id": "1b1syn3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: You should only message your crush when scheduling dates.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1b1syn3/cmv_you_should_only_message_your_crush_when/"
},
{
"author": "agaminon22",
"body": "If I only messaged my crush for our dates, I wouldn't have been in a relationship for the last two years. Whatever works for you, I guess.",
"date": "2024-02-28",
"id": "ksiebfg",
"parent_id": "1b1syn3",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
"body": "During my last therapy session about a week ago, I originally proposed only messaging a woman I like (this is not about a specific situation, just in general) for scheduling dates. My therapist said I actually don't have to do that; I can and perhaps should message the woman for the sake of messaging, and just wanting to get to know her more is already enough reason to message her.\n\nMy main reason for my previous point of view: the most common advice people will give about crushes is to just talk with them directly. In a similar vein, it's always better to ask them out directly and communicate your feelings rather than trying to circumvent it by telling other people. One word comes to mind: efficency. My previous method of pursuing relationships in high school was by telling a bunch of my peers and using them as a vehicle to communicate my feelings for me, along with trying to manifest a relationship in my head. This often ended badly since it usually ended in a whole drama involving a million people that was not fun for anyone. That was not an efficient method of communicating my intentions since the transfer of information was not direct at all. Therefore, the better alternative would be to communicate my feelings more efficiently. How? By asking them out directly, cutting out all the extra buffonery, and communicating my intentions as fast and efficiently as possible.\n\nSuppose you want to build a highway between two cities. What do you do? Do you wind the road up mountain sloped and squiggle it around through valleys? No! That is not an efficient route between the two cities. Instead, you build bridges over the valleys and rivers and blast tunnels through the mountains to keep the highway as straight, flat, and efficient as possible for efficient transportation between both cities.\n\nPlus, imagine you have two types of cards you can play in pursuing a relationship. One card is a text conversation, and the other card is scheduling a date. Although both lead to the core of a relationship, which is \"getting to know each other\" (which I'll call relationship points for the sake of argument), they yield different values of relationship material. The text conversation card is immediate but yields less points, say, only 1 point. On the other hand, scheduling a date takes more time but yields more points, say, 10 points. Which card will I pick? I will pick the \"scheduling a date\" card, since, although it will take more time, it will yield more points in the end. One card just makes stuff, the other card makes stuff that can in turn be used to make even more stuff, therefore yielding more stuff in the end.\n\nMy other reason for only messaging when necessary (i.e. scheduling a date) are not wanting to come off as desperate. I feel like a lot of people complain about men saying \"hey\" because it's a dry and uninteresting opener, and there's not much to go off of. Therefore, a message such as \"Would you like to go on a date?\" might elicit more of a response. I also fear coming off as repetitive and thereby desperate. Let's say I ask a woman how her week was. Well, there will always be many many weeks, so every week I might as well how her week was every week. But then that would be very repetitive, and therefore coming off as desperate since I would be asking the same thing over and over and over again. I also fear coming off as the men on r/niceguys and sometimes r/texts who continually send messages over and over again without ever recieving a response. Therefore, I really only send messages when I deem it necessary so I don't come off as one of those desperate texters that people make fun of.\n\nCMV",
"date": "2024-02-27",
"id": "1b1syn3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: You should only message your crush when scheduling dates.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1b1syn3/cmv_you_should_only_message_your_crush_when/"
},
{
"author": "Big-Fat-Box-Of-Shit",
"body": "Willfully ignoring the advice of your therapist... very smart.",
"date": "2024-02-28",
"id": "ksis8vz",
"parent_id": "1b1syn3",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
]
]
| moderate |
[
{
"author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
"body": "During my last therapy session about a week ago, I originally proposed only messaging a woman I like (this is not about a specific situation, just in general) for scheduling dates. My therapist said I actually don't have to do that; I can and perhaps should message the woman for the sake of messaging, and just wanting to get to know her more is already enough reason to message her.\n\nMy main reason for my previous point of view: the most common advice people will give about crushes is to just talk with them directly. In a similar vein, it's always better to ask them out directly and communicate your feelings rather than trying to circumvent it by telling other people. One word comes to mind: efficency. My previous method of pursuing relationships in high school was by telling a bunch of my peers and using them as a vehicle to communicate my feelings for me, along with trying to manifest a relationship in my head. This often ended badly since it usually ended in a whole drama involving a million people that was not fun for anyone. That was not an efficient method of communicating my intentions since the transfer of information was not direct at all. Therefore, the better alternative would be to communicate my feelings more efficiently. How? By asking them out directly, cutting out all the extra buffonery, and communicating my intentions as fast and efficiently as possible.\n\nSuppose you want to build a highway between two cities. What do you do? Do you wind the road up mountain sloped and squiggle it around through valleys? No! That is not an efficient route between the two cities. Instead, you build bridges over the valleys and rivers and blast tunnels through the mountains to keep the highway as straight, flat, and efficient as possible for efficient transportation between both cities.\n\nPlus, imagine you have two types of cards you can play in pursuing a relationship. One card is a text conversation, and the other card is scheduling a date. Although both lead to the core of a relationship, which is \"getting to know each other\" (which I'll call relationship points for the sake of argument), they yield different values of relationship material. The text conversation card is immediate but yields less points, say, only 1 point. On the other hand, scheduling a date takes more time but yields more points, say, 10 points. Which card will I pick? I will pick the \"scheduling a date\" card, since, although it will take more time, it will yield more points in the end. One card just makes stuff, the other card makes stuff that can in turn be used to make even more stuff, therefore yielding more stuff in the end.\n\nMy other reason for only messaging when necessary (i.e. scheduling a date) are not wanting to come off as desperate. I feel like a lot of people complain about men saying \"hey\" because it's a dry and uninteresting opener, and there's not much to go off of. Therefore, a message such as \"Would you like to go on a date?\" might elicit more of a response. I also fear coming off as repetitive and thereby desperate. Let's say I ask a woman how her week was. Well, there will always be many many weeks, so every week I might as well how her week was every week. But then that would be very repetitive, and therefore coming off as desperate since I would be asking the same thing over and over and over again. I also fear coming off as the men on r/niceguys and sometimes r/texts who continually send messages over and over again without ever recieving a response. Therefore, I really only send messages when I deem it necessary so I don't come off as one of those desperate texters that people make fun of.\n\nCMV",
"date": "2024-02-27",
"id": "1b1syn3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: You should only message your crush when scheduling dates.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1b1syn3/cmv_you_should_only_message_your_crush_when/"
},
{
"author": "ReOsIr10",
"body": "In your 4th paragraph, why are you framing this as if texting your crush to schedule a date and texting your crush just to chat with them are mutually exclusive? Your choice isn't only between a \"10 point\" date and a \"1 point\" text conversation, there's also an \"11 point\" date and text conversation option.\n\nOn the other hand, your 5th paragraph is accurate. It's possible to come off as clingy or desperate by texting too much. But on the other hand, it's possible to come off as cold or uninterested by texting too little. The goal is to find a sweet spot somewhere in the middle, not to embrace whichever extreme seems less bad.",
"date": "2024-02-27",
"id": "ksgw2me",
"parent_id": "1b1syn3",
"score": 7,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
"body": ">Your choice isn't only between a \"10 point\" date and a \"1 point\" text conversation, there's also an \"11 point\" date and text conversation option.\n\nThis is great advice. I think there may be another variable than just \"points\". Dates are not going to be an all-the-time thing because people have different schedules and priorities, so text conversations could fill in the gaps. It's better to have a \"10 point\" date and then \"1 or so points\" of text conversations as opposed to just the date.\n\n>But on the other hand, it's possible to come off as cold or uninterested by texting too little.\n\nThis is another great point. I agree that there is a sweet spot between texting so little as to appear disinterested and texting too much as to appear desperate. Some people may say to text every day but I think a comfortable frequency for me is about 3 times per week.\n\n!delta",
"date": "2024-02-27",
"id": "kshisan",
"parent_id": "ksgw2me",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "DeltaBot",
"body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/ReOsIr10 ([115∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/ReOsIr10)).\n\n^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
"date": "2024-02-27",
"id": "kshj0rj",
"parent_id": "kshisan",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
]
| [
[
{
"author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
"body": "During my last therapy session about a week ago, I originally proposed only messaging a woman I like (this is not about a specific situation, just in general) for scheduling dates. My therapist said I actually don't have to do that; I can and perhaps should message the woman for the sake of messaging, and just wanting to get to know her more is already enough reason to message her.\n\nMy main reason for my previous point of view: the most common advice people will give about crushes is to just talk with them directly. In a similar vein, it's always better to ask them out directly and communicate your feelings rather than trying to circumvent it by telling other people. One word comes to mind: efficency. My previous method of pursuing relationships in high school was by telling a bunch of my peers and using them as a vehicle to communicate my feelings for me, along with trying to manifest a relationship in my head. This often ended badly since it usually ended in a whole drama involving a million people that was not fun for anyone. That was not an efficient method of communicating my intentions since the transfer of information was not direct at all. Therefore, the better alternative would be to communicate my feelings more efficiently. How? By asking them out directly, cutting out all the extra buffonery, and communicating my intentions as fast and efficiently as possible.\n\nSuppose you want to build a highway between two cities. What do you do? Do you wind the road up mountain sloped and squiggle it around through valleys? No! That is not an efficient route between the two cities. Instead, you build bridges over the valleys and rivers and blast tunnels through the mountains to keep the highway as straight, flat, and efficient as possible for efficient transportation between both cities.\n\nPlus, imagine you have two types of cards you can play in pursuing a relationship. One card is a text conversation, and the other card is scheduling a date. Although both lead to the core of a relationship, which is \"getting to know each other\" (which I'll call relationship points for the sake of argument), they yield different values of relationship material. The text conversation card is immediate but yields less points, say, only 1 point. On the other hand, scheduling a date takes more time but yields more points, say, 10 points. Which card will I pick? I will pick the \"scheduling a date\" card, since, although it will take more time, it will yield more points in the end. One card just makes stuff, the other card makes stuff that can in turn be used to make even more stuff, therefore yielding more stuff in the end.\n\nMy other reason for only messaging when necessary (i.e. scheduling a date) are not wanting to come off as desperate. I feel like a lot of people complain about men saying \"hey\" because it's a dry and uninteresting opener, and there's not much to go off of. Therefore, a message such as \"Would you like to go on a date?\" might elicit more of a response. I also fear coming off as repetitive and thereby desperate. Let's say I ask a woman how her week was. Well, there will always be many many weeks, so every week I might as well how her week was every week. But then that would be very repetitive, and therefore coming off as desperate since I would be asking the same thing over and over and over again. I also fear coming off as the men on r/niceguys and sometimes r/texts who continually send messages over and over again without ever recieving a response. Therefore, I really only send messages when I deem it necessary so I don't come off as one of those desperate texters that people make fun of.\n\nCMV",
"date": "2024-02-27",
"id": "1b1syn3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: You should only message your crush when scheduling dates.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1b1syn3/cmv_you_should_only_message_your_crush_when/"
},
{
"author": "LongDropSlowStop",
"body": "Human interaction isn't an optimization problem. If you actually like someone, interacting with them should be a benefit in and of itself. Not just a means to an end.",
"date": "2024-02-27",
"id": "ksgttn3",
"parent_id": "1b1syn3",
"score": 31,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Sulfamide",
"body": "Everything can be an optimization problem.\n\nBut I agree that given the complexity oh human relationships, wanting an optimal strategy is foolish.\n\nAlso, there’s liking and there’s liking. There are some people that I don’t like talking to but that I really want to fuck.\n\nLastly, even though OP framed it like an optimal strategy, I would say that the advice is good. I believe that there are very little situations where instant messaging isn’t simply the worst way to have a healthy happy with anybody.",
"date": "2024-02-28",
"id": "ksidqzj",
"parent_id": "ksgttn3",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
"body": "During my last therapy session about a week ago, I originally proposed only messaging a woman I like (this is not about a specific situation, just in general) for scheduling dates. My therapist said I actually don't have to do that; I can and perhaps should message the woman for the sake of messaging, and just wanting to get to know her more is already enough reason to message her.\n\nMy main reason for my previous point of view: the most common advice people will give about crushes is to just talk with them directly. In a similar vein, it's always better to ask them out directly and communicate your feelings rather than trying to circumvent it by telling other people. One word comes to mind: efficency. My previous method of pursuing relationships in high school was by telling a bunch of my peers and using them as a vehicle to communicate my feelings for me, along with trying to manifest a relationship in my head. This often ended badly since it usually ended in a whole drama involving a million people that was not fun for anyone. That was not an efficient method of communicating my intentions since the transfer of information was not direct at all. Therefore, the better alternative would be to communicate my feelings more efficiently. How? By asking them out directly, cutting out all the extra buffonery, and communicating my intentions as fast and efficiently as possible.\n\nSuppose you want to build a highway between two cities. What do you do? Do you wind the road up mountain sloped and squiggle it around through valleys? No! That is not an efficient route between the two cities. Instead, you build bridges over the valleys and rivers and blast tunnels through the mountains to keep the highway as straight, flat, and efficient as possible for efficient transportation between both cities.\n\nPlus, imagine you have two types of cards you can play in pursuing a relationship. One card is a text conversation, and the other card is scheduling a date. Although both lead to the core of a relationship, which is \"getting to know each other\" (which I'll call relationship points for the sake of argument), they yield different values of relationship material. The text conversation card is immediate but yields less points, say, only 1 point. On the other hand, scheduling a date takes more time but yields more points, say, 10 points. Which card will I pick? I will pick the \"scheduling a date\" card, since, although it will take more time, it will yield more points in the end. One card just makes stuff, the other card makes stuff that can in turn be used to make even more stuff, therefore yielding more stuff in the end.\n\nMy other reason for only messaging when necessary (i.e. scheduling a date) are not wanting to come off as desperate. I feel like a lot of people complain about men saying \"hey\" because it's a dry and uninteresting opener, and there's not much to go off of. Therefore, a message such as \"Would you like to go on a date?\" might elicit more of a response. I also fear coming off as repetitive and thereby desperate. Let's say I ask a woman how her week was. Well, there will always be many many weeks, so every week I might as well how her week was every week. But then that would be very repetitive, and therefore coming off as desperate since I would be asking the same thing over and over and over again. I also fear coming off as the men on r/niceguys and sometimes r/texts who continually send messages over and over again without ever recieving a response. Therefore, I really only send messages when I deem it necessary so I don't come off as one of those desperate texters that people make fun of.\n\nCMV",
"date": "2024-02-27",
"id": "1b1syn3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: You should only message your crush when scheduling dates.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1b1syn3/cmv_you_should_only_message_your_crush_when/"
},
{
"author": "Ballatik",
"body": "Isn’t the point of a date to share company and conversation for the sake of enjoyment and fostering connection? Aren’t other forms of communication such as messaging also capable of this?",
"date": "2024-02-27",
"id": "ksgvsef",
"parent_id": "1b1syn3",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Organic_Muffin280",
"body": "No",
"date": "2024-02-28",
"id": "ksi9k69",
"parent_id": "ksgvsef",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
"body": "During my last therapy session about a week ago, I originally proposed only messaging a woman I like (this is not about a specific situation, just in general) for scheduling dates. My therapist said I actually don't have to do that; I can and perhaps should message the woman for the sake of messaging, and just wanting to get to know her more is already enough reason to message her.\n\nMy main reason for my previous point of view: the most common advice people will give about crushes is to just talk with them directly. In a similar vein, it's always better to ask them out directly and communicate your feelings rather than trying to circumvent it by telling other people. One word comes to mind: efficency. My previous method of pursuing relationships in high school was by telling a bunch of my peers and using them as a vehicle to communicate my feelings for me, along with trying to manifest a relationship in my head. This often ended badly since it usually ended in a whole drama involving a million people that was not fun for anyone. That was not an efficient method of communicating my intentions since the transfer of information was not direct at all. Therefore, the better alternative would be to communicate my feelings more efficiently. How? By asking them out directly, cutting out all the extra buffonery, and communicating my intentions as fast and efficiently as possible.\n\nSuppose you want to build a highway between two cities. What do you do? Do you wind the road up mountain sloped and squiggle it around through valleys? No! That is not an efficient route between the two cities. Instead, you build bridges over the valleys and rivers and blast tunnels through the mountains to keep the highway as straight, flat, and efficient as possible for efficient transportation between both cities.\n\nPlus, imagine you have two types of cards you can play in pursuing a relationship. One card is a text conversation, and the other card is scheduling a date. Although both lead to the core of a relationship, which is \"getting to know each other\" (which I'll call relationship points for the sake of argument), they yield different values of relationship material. The text conversation card is immediate but yields less points, say, only 1 point. On the other hand, scheduling a date takes more time but yields more points, say, 10 points. Which card will I pick? I will pick the \"scheduling a date\" card, since, although it will take more time, it will yield more points in the end. One card just makes stuff, the other card makes stuff that can in turn be used to make even more stuff, therefore yielding more stuff in the end.\n\nMy other reason for only messaging when necessary (i.e. scheduling a date) are not wanting to come off as desperate. I feel like a lot of people complain about men saying \"hey\" because it's a dry and uninteresting opener, and there's not much to go off of. Therefore, a message such as \"Would you like to go on a date?\" might elicit more of a response. I also fear coming off as repetitive and thereby desperate. Let's say I ask a woman how her week was. Well, there will always be many many weeks, so every week I might as well how her week was every week. But then that would be very repetitive, and therefore coming off as desperate since I would be asking the same thing over and over and over again. I also fear coming off as the men on r/niceguys and sometimes r/texts who continually send messages over and over again without ever recieving a response. Therefore, I really only send messages when I deem it necessary so I don't come off as one of those desperate texters that people make fun of.\n\nCMV",
"date": "2024-02-27",
"id": "1b1syn3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: You should only message your crush when scheduling dates.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1b1syn3/cmv_you_should_only_message_your_crush_when/"
},
{
"author": "ApprehensiveSquash4",
"body": "Why can't you do both?",
"date": "2024-02-27",
"id": "ksgw79b",
"parent_id": "1b1syn3",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
"body": "During my last therapy session about a week ago, I originally proposed only messaging a woman I like (this is not about a specific situation, just in general) for scheduling dates. My therapist said I actually don't have to do that; I can and perhaps should message the woman for the sake of messaging, and just wanting to get to know her more is already enough reason to message her.\n\nMy main reason for my previous point of view: the most common advice people will give about crushes is to just talk with them directly. In a similar vein, it's always better to ask them out directly and communicate your feelings rather than trying to circumvent it by telling other people. One word comes to mind: efficency. My previous method of pursuing relationships in high school was by telling a bunch of my peers and using them as a vehicle to communicate my feelings for me, along with trying to manifest a relationship in my head. This often ended badly since it usually ended in a whole drama involving a million people that was not fun for anyone. That was not an efficient method of communicating my intentions since the transfer of information was not direct at all. Therefore, the better alternative would be to communicate my feelings more efficiently. How? By asking them out directly, cutting out all the extra buffonery, and communicating my intentions as fast and efficiently as possible.\n\nSuppose you want to build a highway between two cities. What do you do? Do you wind the road up mountain sloped and squiggle it around through valleys? No! That is not an efficient route between the two cities. Instead, you build bridges over the valleys and rivers and blast tunnels through the mountains to keep the highway as straight, flat, and efficient as possible for efficient transportation between both cities.\n\nPlus, imagine you have two types of cards you can play in pursuing a relationship. One card is a text conversation, and the other card is scheduling a date. Although both lead to the core of a relationship, which is \"getting to know each other\" (which I'll call relationship points for the sake of argument), they yield different values of relationship material. The text conversation card is immediate but yields less points, say, only 1 point. On the other hand, scheduling a date takes more time but yields more points, say, 10 points. Which card will I pick? I will pick the \"scheduling a date\" card, since, although it will take more time, it will yield more points in the end. One card just makes stuff, the other card makes stuff that can in turn be used to make even more stuff, therefore yielding more stuff in the end.\n\nMy other reason for only messaging when necessary (i.e. scheduling a date) are not wanting to come off as desperate. I feel like a lot of people complain about men saying \"hey\" because it's a dry and uninteresting opener, and there's not much to go off of. Therefore, a message such as \"Would you like to go on a date?\" might elicit more of a response. I also fear coming off as repetitive and thereby desperate. Let's say I ask a woman how her week was. Well, there will always be many many weeks, so every week I might as well how her week was every week. But then that would be very repetitive, and therefore coming off as desperate since I would be asking the same thing over and over and over again. I also fear coming off as the men on r/niceguys and sometimes r/texts who continually send messages over and over again without ever recieving a response. Therefore, I really only send messages when I deem it necessary so I don't come off as one of those desperate texters that people make fun of.\n\nCMV",
"date": "2024-02-27",
"id": "1b1syn3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: You should only message your crush when scheduling dates.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1b1syn3/cmv_you_should_only_message_your_crush_when/"
},
{
"author": "Tanaka917",
"body": "I feel like you're jumping from one extreme to the other with no pause for the middle. \n\nSo in highschool because you were unclear with your feelings and involved others it triggered a chain reaction of bad times. You've chosen to compensate for this by being as direct as possible with your feelings so as to leave no gap for confusion. Now I will say I agree being direct is good, and I will agree that in person will always be important.\n\nThe thing you might not be considering is that texting is in fact a method of communication you can use while still being rather direct. It's not necessary to be coy over text. Texting someone you like is enjoyable; there's a lot of room between hi and date. Granted it's easier to text the better you know someone and the more clear you are about what you mean to each other but it doesn't preclude texting. At some point you'll have to learn how to casual text enough to get by. \n\nFor instance one of my friends lives overseas. My night is her afternoon/evening therefore I wake up most days to some sort of meme hoard/voice note or video. Mostly something silly and fun she thinks I might like. There's nothing boring about it and I'd be rather sad if the only times we ever messaged was to schedule a call y'know?\n\nSo in summary, yes it's good to be direct but texting doesn't necessarily stop you from doing that. If you prefer in person do that but don't try to reduce it to a binary choice when it's really just another tool you can use for communication.",
"date": "2024-02-27",
"id": "ksgx5mx",
"parent_id": "1b1syn3",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
"body": "During my last therapy session about a week ago, I originally proposed only messaging a woman I like (this is not about a specific situation, just in general) for scheduling dates. My therapist said I actually don't have to do that; I can and perhaps should message the woman for the sake of messaging, and just wanting to get to know her more is already enough reason to message her.\n\nMy main reason for my previous point of view: the most common advice people will give about crushes is to just talk with them directly. In a similar vein, it's always better to ask them out directly and communicate your feelings rather than trying to circumvent it by telling other people. One word comes to mind: efficency. My previous method of pursuing relationships in high school was by telling a bunch of my peers and using them as a vehicle to communicate my feelings for me, along with trying to manifest a relationship in my head. This often ended badly since it usually ended in a whole drama involving a million people that was not fun for anyone. That was not an efficient method of communicating my intentions since the transfer of information was not direct at all. Therefore, the better alternative would be to communicate my feelings more efficiently. How? By asking them out directly, cutting out all the extra buffonery, and communicating my intentions as fast and efficiently as possible.\n\nSuppose you want to build a highway between two cities. What do you do? Do you wind the road up mountain sloped and squiggle it around through valleys? No! That is not an efficient route between the two cities. Instead, you build bridges over the valleys and rivers and blast tunnels through the mountains to keep the highway as straight, flat, and efficient as possible for efficient transportation between both cities.\n\nPlus, imagine you have two types of cards you can play in pursuing a relationship. One card is a text conversation, and the other card is scheduling a date. Although both lead to the core of a relationship, which is \"getting to know each other\" (which I'll call relationship points for the sake of argument), they yield different values of relationship material. The text conversation card is immediate but yields less points, say, only 1 point. On the other hand, scheduling a date takes more time but yields more points, say, 10 points. Which card will I pick? I will pick the \"scheduling a date\" card, since, although it will take more time, it will yield more points in the end. One card just makes stuff, the other card makes stuff that can in turn be used to make even more stuff, therefore yielding more stuff in the end.\n\nMy other reason for only messaging when necessary (i.e. scheduling a date) are not wanting to come off as desperate. I feel like a lot of people complain about men saying \"hey\" because it's a dry and uninteresting opener, and there's not much to go off of. Therefore, a message such as \"Would you like to go on a date?\" might elicit more of a response. I also fear coming off as repetitive and thereby desperate. Let's say I ask a woman how her week was. Well, there will always be many many weeks, so every week I might as well how her week was every week. But then that would be very repetitive, and therefore coming off as desperate since I would be asking the same thing over and over and over again. I also fear coming off as the men on r/niceguys and sometimes r/texts who continually send messages over and over again without ever recieving a response. Therefore, I really only send messages when I deem it necessary so I don't come off as one of those desperate texters that people make fun of.\n\nCMV",
"date": "2024-02-27",
"id": "1b1syn3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: You should only message your crush when scheduling dates.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1b1syn3/cmv_you_should_only_message_your_crush_when/"
},
{
"author": "manatorn",
"body": "The trouble with that perspective, my friend, is that it relies on the consistency of the landscape.",
"date": "2024-02-27",
"id": "ksh1bht",
"parent_id": "1b1syn3",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
"body": "During my last therapy session about a week ago, I originally proposed only messaging a woman I like (this is not about a specific situation, just in general) for scheduling dates. My therapist said I actually don't have to do that; I can and perhaps should message the woman for the sake of messaging, and just wanting to get to know her more is already enough reason to message her.\n\nMy main reason for my previous point of view: the most common advice people will give about crushes is to just talk with them directly. In a similar vein, it's always better to ask them out directly and communicate your feelings rather than trying to circumvent it by telling other people. One word comes to mind: efficency. My previous method of pursuing relationships in high school was by telling a bunch of my peers and using them as a vehicle to communicate my feelings for me, along with trying to manifest a relationship in my head. This often ended badly since it usually ended in a whole drama involving a million people that was not fun for anyone. That was not an efficient method of communicating my intentions since the transfer of information was not direct at all. Therefore, the better alternative would be to communicate my feelings more efficiently. How? By asking them out directly, cutting out all the extra buffonery, and communicating my intentions as fast and efficiently as possible.\n\nSuppose you want to build a highway between two cities. What do you do? Do you wind the road up mountain sloped and squiggle it around through valleys? No! That is not an efficient route between the two cities. Instead, you build bridges over the valleys and rivers and blast tunnels through the mountains to keep the highway as straight, flat, and efficient as possible for efficient transportation between both cities.\n\nPlus, imagine you have two types of cards you can play in pursuing a relationship. One card is a text conversation, and the other card is scheduling a date. Although both lead to the core of a relationship, which is \"getting to know each other\" (which I'll call relationship points for the sake of argument), they yield different values of relationship material. The text conversation card is immediate but yields less points, say, only 1 point. On the other hand, scheduling a date takes more time but yields more points, say, 10 points. Which card will I pick? I will pick the \"scheduling a date\" card, since, although it will take more time, it will yield more points in the end. One card just makes stuff, the other card makes stuff that can in turn be used to make even more stuff, therefore yielding more stuff in the end.\n\nMy other reason for only messaging when necessary (i.e. scheduling a date) are not wanting to come off as desperate. I feel like a lot of people complain about men saying \"hey\" because it's a dry and uninteresting opener, and there's not much to go off of. Therefore, a message such as \"Would you like to go on a date?\" might elicit more of a response. I also fear coming off as repetitive and thereby desperate. Let's say I ask a woman how her week was. Well, there will always be many many weeks, so every week I might as well how her week was every week. But then that would be very repetitive, and therefore coming off as desperate since I would be asking the same thing over and over and over again. I also fear coming off as the men on r/niceguys and sometimes r/texts who continually send messages over and over again without ever recieving a response. Therefore, I really only send messages when I deem it necessary so I don't come off as one of those desperate texters that people make fun of.\n\nCMV",
"date": "2024-02-27",
"id": "1b1syn3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: You should only message your crush when scheduling dates.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1b1syn3/cmv_you_should_only_message_your_crush_when/"
},
{
"author": "NoVaFlipFlops",
"body": "As a woman, if you ONLY messaged me to schedule dates I would wonder if you even liked me. If I decided you did like me and you kept this up, I would think you see me as just a reliable activity partner. I would also point out to you that you ought to listen to your therapist. They don't give straight up advice or personal opinions unless they think you can handle it (ie accept it without taking it personally) and if they think you are about to mess things up. It's nice you seem to trust her that she's not arguing with you for the sake of arguing or something. But just trust her. ",
"date": "2024-02-27",
"id": "ksh2l34",
"parent_id": "1b1syn3",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Organic_Muffin280",
"body": "Or you just tell her upfront you never text",
"date": "2024-02-28",
"id": "ksi9i0p",
"parent_id": "ksh2l34",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
"body": "During my last therapy session about a week ago, I originally proposed only messaging a woman I like (this is not about a specific situation, just in general) for scheduling dates. My therapist said I actually don't have to do that; I can and perhaps should message the woman for the sake of messaging, and just wanting to get to know her more is already enough reason to message her.\n\nMy main reason for my previous point of view: the most common advice people will give about crushes is to just talk with them directly. In a similar vein, it's always better to ask them out directly and communicate your feelings rather than trying to circumvent it by telling other people. One word comes to mind: efficency. My previous method of pursuing relationships in high school was by telling a bunch of my peers and using them as a vehicle to communicate my feelings for me, along with trying to manifest a relationship in my head. This often ended badly since it usually ended in a whole drama involving a million people that was not fun for anyone. That was not an efficient method of communicating my intentions since the transfer of information was not direct at all. Therefore, the better alternative would be to communicate my feelings more efficiently. How? By asking them out directly, cutting out all the extra buffonery, and communicating my intentions as fast and efficiently as possible.\n\nSuppose you want to build a highway between two cities. What do you do? Do you wind the road up mountain sloped and squiggle it around through valleys? No! That is not an efficient route between the two cities. Instead, you build bridges over the valleys and rivers and blast tunnels through the mountains to keep the highway as straight, flat, and efficient as possible for efficient transportation between both cities.\n\nPlus, imagine you have two types of cards you can play in pursuing a relationship. One card is a text conversation, and the other card is scheduling a date. Although both lead to the core of a relationship, which is \"getting to know each other\" (which I'll call relationship points for the sake of argument), they yield different values of relationship material. The text conversation card is immediate but yields less points, say, only 1 point. On the other hand, scheduling a date takes more time but yields more points, say, 10 points. Which card will I pick? I will pick the \"scheduling a date\" card, since, although it will take more time, it will yield more points in the end. One card just makes stuff, the other card makes stuff that can in turn be used to make even more stuff, therefore yielding more stuff in the end.\n\nMy other reason for only messaging when necessary (i.e. scheduling a date) are not wanting to come off as desperate. I feel like a lot of people complain about men saying \"hey\" because it's a dry and uninteresting opener, and there's not much to go off of. Therefore, a message such as \"Would you like to go on a date?\" might elicit more of a response. I also fear coming off as repetitive and thereby desperate. Let's say I ask a woman how her week was. Well, there will always be many many weeks, so every week I might as well how her week was every week. But then that would be very repetitive, and therefore coming off as desperate since I would be asking the same thing over and over and over again. I also fear coming off as the men on r/niceguys and sometimes r/texts who continually send messages over and over again without ever recieving a response. Therefore, I really only send messages when I deem it necessary so I don't come off as one of those desperate texters that people make fun of.\n\nCMV",
"date": "2024-02-27",
"id": "1b1syn3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: You should only message your crush when scheduling dates.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1b1syn3/cmv_you_should_only_message_your_crush_when/"
},
{
"author": "Colleen_Hoover",
"body": "> What do you do? Do you wind the road up mountain sloped and squiggle it around through valleys? No! That is not an efficient route between the two cities. Instead, you build bridges over the valleys and rivers and blast tunnels through the mountains to keep the highway as straight, flat, and efficient as possible\n\nHave you ever driven through West Virginia or South America? I don't know what they're doing in Europe, but mountains are hard as shit to blast through for the sake of a road. In the civilized world, mountain roads slope and squiggle.",
"date": "2024-02-27",
"id": "ksh72aq",
"parent_id": "1b1syn3",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
"body": "During my last therapy session about a week ago, I originally proposed only messaging a woman I like (this is not about a specific situation, just in general) for scheduling dates. My therapist said I actually don't have to do that; I can and perhaps should message the woman for the sake of messaging, and just wanting to get to know her more is already enough reason to message her.\n\nMy main reason for my previous point of view: the most common advice people will give about crushes is to just talk with them directly. In a similar vein, it's always better to ask them out directly and communicate your feelings rather than trying to circumvent it by telling other people. One word comes to mind: efficency. My previous method of pursuing relationships in high school was by telling a bunch of my peers and using them as a vehicle to communicate my feelings for me, along with trying to manifest a relationship in my head. This often ended badly since it usually ended in a whole drama involving a million people that was not fun for anyone. That was not an efficient method of communicating my intentions since the transfer of information was not direct at all. Therefore, the better alternative would be to communicate my feelings more efficiently. How? By asking them out directly, cutting out all the extra buffonery, and communicating my intentions as fast and efficiently as possible.\n\nSuppose you want to build a highway between two cities. What do you do? Do you wind the road up mountain sloped and squiggle it around through valleys? No! That is not an efficient route between the two cities. Instead, you build bridges over the valleys and rivers and blast tunnels through the mountains to keep the highway as straight, flat, and efficient as possible for efficient transportation between both cities.\n\nPlus, imagine you have two types of cards you can play in pursuing a relationship. One card is a text conversation, and the other card is scheduling a date. Although both lead to the core of a relationship, which is \"getting to know each other\" (which I'll call relationship points for the sake of argument), they yield different values of relationship material. The text conversation card is immediate but yields less points, say, only 1 point. On the other hand, scheduling a date takes more time but yields more points, say, 10 points. Which card will I pick? I will pick the \"scheduling a date\" card, since, although it will take more time, it will yield more points in the end. One card just makes stuff, the other card makes stuff that can in turn be used to make even more stuff, therefore yielding more stuff in the end.\n\nMy other reason for only messaging when necessary (i.e. scheduling a date) are not wanting to come off as desperate. I feel like a lot of people complain about men saying \"hey\" because it's a dry and uninteresting opener, and there's not much to go off of. Therefore, a message such as \"Would you like to go on a date?\" might elicit more of a response. I also fear coming off as repetitive and thereby desperate. Let's say I ask a woman how her week was. Well, there will always be many many weeks, so every week I might as well how her week was every week. But then that would be very repetitive, and therefore coming off as desperate since I would be asking the same thing over and over and over again. I also fear coming off as the men on r/niceguys and sometimes r/texts who continually send messages over and over again without ever recieving a response. Therefore, I really only send messages when I deem it necessary so I don't come off as one of those desperate texters that people make fun of.\n\nCMV",
"date": "2024-02-27",
"id": "1b1syn3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: You should only message your crush when scheduling dates.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1b1syn3/cmv_you_should_only_message_your_crush_when/"
},
{
"author": "pavilionaire2022",
"body": ">Suppose you want to build a highway between two cities. What do you do? Do you wind the road up mountain sloped and squiggle it around through valleys? No! That is not an efficient route between the two cities. Instead, you build bridges over the valleys and rivers and blast tunnels through the mountains to keep the highway as straight, flat, and efficient as possible for efficient transportation between both cities.\n\nReasoning by analogy doesn't prove anything, but even your analogy fails. Different forms of transportation exist: cars, trains, planes, boats. All of them take some form of the most direct and efficient route, but all are useful for different purposes. You take a different form if you are in a hurry than if you're trying to save many or carry a lot of freight.\n\nIf you want to have a long conversation, by all means, save it for a date. If you just have a thought you think might be interesting to someone, they generally appreciate you letting them know you're thinking of them.\n\n>I also fear coming off as the men on r/niceguys and sometimes r/texts who continually send messages over and over again without ever recieving a response. Therefore, I really only send messages when I deem it necessary so I don't come off as one of those desperate texters that people make fun of.\n\nYou seem to be looking for a simple rule to avoid a faux pas, but being so rigid will be equally off-putting. Just match the energy of the other person. If you're messaging them a lot, and they aren't initiating messages with you, then maybe back off a bit.",
"date": "2024-02-27",
"id": "ksh9k7j",
"parent_id": "1b1syn3",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
"body": "During my last therapy session about a week ago, I originally proposed only messaging a woman I like (this is not about a specific situation, just in general) for scheduling dates. My therapist said I actually don't have to do that; I can and perhaps should message the woman for the sake of messaging, and just wanting to get to know her more is already enough reason to message her.\n\nMy main reason for my previous point of view: the most common advice people will give about crushes is to just talk with them directly. In a similar vein, it's always better to ask them out directly and communicate your feelings rather than trying to circumvent it by telling other people. One word comes to mind: efficency. My previous method of pursuing relationships in high school was by telling a bunch of my peers and using them as a vehicle to communicate my feelings for me, along with trying to manifest a relationship in my head. This often ended badly since it usually ended in a whole drama involving a million people that was not fun for anyone. That was not an efficient method of communicating my intentions since the transfer of information was not direct at all. Therefore, the better alternative would be to communicate my feelings more efficiently. How? By asking them out directly, cutting out all the extra buffonery, and communicating my intentions as fast and efficiently as possible.\n\nSuppose you want to build a highway between two cities. What do you do? Do you wind the road up mountain sloped and squiggle it around through valleys? No! That is not an efficient route between the two cities. Instead, you build bridges over the valleys and rivers and blast tunnels through the mountains to keep the highway as straight, flat, and efficient as possible for efficient transportation between both cities.\n\nPlus, imagine you have two types of cards you can play in pursuing a relationship. One card is a text conversation, and the other card is scheduling a date. Although both lead to the core of a relationship, which is \"getting to know each other\" (which I'll call relationship points for the sake of argument), they yield different values of relationship material. The text conversation card is immediate but yields less points, say, only 1 point. On the other hand, scheduling a date takes more time but yields more points, say, 10 points. Which card will I pick? I will pick the \"scheduling a date\" card, since, although it will take more time, it will yield more points in the end. One card just makes stuff, the other card makes stuff that can in turn be used to make even more stuff, therefore yielding more stuff in the end.\n\nMy other reason for only messaging when necessary (i.e. scheduling a date) are not wanting to come off as desperate. I feel like a lot of people complain about men saying \"hey\" because it's a dry and uninteresting opener, and there's not much to go off of. Therefore, a message such as \"Would you like to go on a date?\" might elicit more of a response. I also fear coming off as repetitive and thereby desperate. Let's say I ask a woman how her week was. Well, there will always be many many weeks, so every week I might as well how her week was every week. But then that would be very repetitive, and therefore coming off as desperate since I would be asking the same thing over and over and over again. I also fear coming off as the men on r/niceguys and sometimes r/texts who continually send messages over and over again without ever recieving a response. Therefore, I really only send messages when I deem it necessary so I don't come off as one of those desperate texters that people make fun of.\n\nCMV",
"date": "2024-02-27",
"id": "1b1syn3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: You should only message your crush when scheduling dates.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1b1syn3/cmv_you_should_only_message_your_crush_when/"
},
{
"author": "alpicola",
"body": ">My previous method of pursuing relationships in high school was by telling a bunch of my peers and using them as a vehicle to communicate my feelings for me, along with trying to manifest a relationship in my head.\n\n\nYeah... As you've discovered, don't do this. Talking directly to the person you want to go out with is better in just about every possible way. \n\n\n>My other reason for only messaging when necessary (i.e. scheduling a date) are not wanting to come off as desperate.\n\n\nIt depends. If you're having a real conversation, then carrying on that conversation isn't desperate, it's just having a conversation. If your messages are all a bunch of low/no value gibberish, or if you're trying to force a conversation that's clearly died, then yes, that's going to seem like desperation. I'm the early, middle, and late stages of dating, conversations are good.\n\n\n\n>Let's say I ask a woman how her week was. Well, there will always be many many weeks, so every week I might as well how her week was every week.\n\n\nIf asking her about her week is the total extent of your conversation with her, then looking desperate is probably the least of your problems. Ideally, you want to move on to having enough of an ongoing conversation that you already know how her week is without needing to explicitly ask. That said, assuming you only get to see her once a week, asking about her week isn't a bad way to start up the conversation, provided you actually care about her answer. \n\n\n>I also fear coming off as the men on r/niceguys and sometimes r/texts who continually send messages over and over again without ever recieving a response. \n\n\nYeah, so don't do that. You can usually tell when a conversation dies, and it's easy enough to confirm when a follow up message a day or so later also goes unanswered.\n\n\n>Therefore, I really only send messages when I deem it necessary so I don't come off as one of those desperate texters that people make fun of.\n\n\nWorry less about appearances and more about connections. The kinds of chats that get posted on reddit come because people fail to make a connection and fail to realize that they've failed. Arbitrary texting rules are a great way to *cause* missed connections. You'll be far more successful if you forget the rules and learn how to read the room.",
"date": "2024-02-27",
"id": "kshd2hv",
"parent_id": "1b1syn3",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
"body": "During my last therapy session about a week ago, I originally proposed only messaging a woman I like (this is not about a specific situation, just in general) for scheduling dates. My therapist said I actually don't have to do that; I can and perhaps should message the woman for the sake of messaging, and just wanting to get to know her more is already enough reason to message her.\n\nMy main reason for my previous point of view: the most common advice people will give about crushes is to just talk with them directly. In a similar vein, it's always better to ask them out directly and communicate your feelings rather than trying to circumvent it by telling other people. One word comes to mind: efficency. My previous method of pursuing relationships in high school was by telling a bunch of my peers and using them as a vehicle to communicate my feelings for me, along with trying to manifest a relationship in my head. This often ended badly since it usually ended in a whole drama involving a million people that was not fun for anyone. That was not an efficient method of communicating my intentions since the transfer of information was not direct at all. Therefore, the better alternative would be to communicate my feelings more efficiently. How? By asking them out directly, cutting out all the extra buffonery, and communicating my intentions as fast and efficiently as possible.\n\nSuppose you want to build a highway between two cities. What do you do? Do you wind the road up mountain sloped and squiggle it around through valleys? No! That is not an efficient route between the two cities. Instead, you build bridges over the valleys and rivers and blast tunnels through the mountains to keep the highway as straight, flat, and efficient as possible for efficient transportation between both cities.\n\nPlus, imagine you have two types of cards you can play in pursuing a relationship. One card is a text conversation, and the other card is scheduling a date. Although both lead to the core of a relationship, which is \"getting to know each other\" (which I'll call relationship points for the sake of argument), they yield different values of relationship material. The text conversation card is immediate but yields less points, say, only 1 point. On the other hand, scheduling a date takes more time but yields more points, say, 10 points. Which card will I pick? I will pick the \"scheduling a date\" card, since, although it will take more time, it will yield more points in the end. One card just makes stuff, the other card makes stuff that can in turn be used to make even more stuff, therefore yielding more stuff in the end.\n\nMy other reason for only messaging when necessary (i.e. scheduling a date) are not wanting to come off as desperate. I feel like a lot of people complain about men saying \"hey\" because it's a dry and uninteresting opener, and there's not much to go off of. Therefore, a message such as \"Would you like to go on a date?\" might elicit more of a response. I also fear coming off as repetitive and thereby desperate. Let's say I ask a woman how her week was. Well, there will always be many many weeks, so every week I might as well how her week was every week. But then that would be very repetitive, and therefore coming off as desperate since I would be asking the same thing over and over and over again. I also fear coming off as the men on r/niceguys and sometimes r/texts who continually send messages over and over again without ever recieving a response. Therefore, I really only send messages when I deem it necessary so I don't come off as one of those desperate texters that people make fun of.\n\nCMV",
"date": "2024-02-27",
"id": "1b1syn3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: You should only message your crush when scheduling dates.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1b1syn3/cmv_you_should_only_message_your_crush_when/"
},
{
"author": "agaminon22",
"body": "If I only messaged my crush for our dates, I wouldn't have been in a relationship for the last two years. Whatever works for you, I guess.",
"date": "2024-02-28",
"id": "ksiebfg",
"parent_id": "1b1syn3",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
"body": "During my last therapy session about a week ago, I originally proposed only messaging a woman I like (this is not about a specific situation, just in general) for scheduling dates. My therapist said I actually don't have to do that; I can and perhaps should message the woman for the sake of messaging, and just wanting to get to know her more is already enough reason to message her.\n\nMy main reason for my previous point of view: the most common advice people will give about crushes is to just talk with them directly. In a similar vein, it's always better to ask them out directly and communicate your feelings rather than trying to circumvent it by telling other people. One word comes to mind: efficency. My previous method of pursuing relationships in high school was by telling a bunch of my peers and using them as a vehicle to communicate my feelings for me, along with trying to manifest a relationship in my head. This often ended badly since it usually ended in a whole drama involving a million people that was not fun for anyone. That was not an efficient method of communicating my intentions since the transfer of information was not direct at all. Therefore, the better alternative would be to communicate my feelings more efficiently. How? By asking them out directly, cutting out all the extra buffonery, and communicating my intentions as fast and efficiently as possible.\n\nSuppose you want to build a highway between two cities. What do you do? Do you wind the road up mountain sloped and squiggle it around through valleys? No! That is not an efficient route between the two cities. Instead, you build bridges over the valleys and rivers and blast tunnels through the mountains to keep the highway as straight, flat, and efficient as possible for efficient transportation between both cities.\n\nPlus, imagine you have two types of cards you can play in pursuing a relationship. One card is a text conversation, and the other card is scheduling a date. Although both lead to the core of a relationship, which is \"getting to know each other\" (which I'll call relationship points for the sake of argument), they yield different values of relationship material. The text conversation card is immediate but yields less points, say, only 1 point. On the other hand, scheduling a date takes more time but yields more points, say, 10 points. Which card will I pick? I will pick the \"scheduling a date\" card, since, although it will take more time, it will yield more points in the end. One card just makes stuff, the other card makes stuff that can in turn be used to make even more stuff, therefore yielding more stuff in the end.\n\nMy other reason for only messaging when necessary (i.e. scheduling a date) are not wanting to come off as desperate. I feel like a lot of people complain about men saying \"hey\" because it's a dry and uninteresting opener, and there's not much to go off of. Therefore, a message such as \"Would you like to go on a date?\" might elicit more of a response. I also fear coming off as repetitive and thereby desperate. Let's say I ask a woman how her week was. Well, there will always be many many weeks, so every week I might as well how her week was every week. But then that would be very repetitive, and therefore coming off as desperate since I would be asking the same thing over and over and over again. I also fear coming off as the men on r/niceguys and sometimes r/texts who continually send messages over and over again without ever recieving a response. Therefore, I really only send messages when I deem it necessary so I don't come off as one of those desperate texters that people make fun of.\n\nCMV",
"date": "2024-02-27",
"id": "1b1syn3",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: You should only message your crush when scheduling dates.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1b1syn3/cmv_you_should_only_message_your_crush_when/"
},
{
"author": "Big-Fat-Box-Of-Shit",
"body": "Willfully ignoring the advice of your therapist... very smart.",
"date": "2024-02-28",
"id": "ksis8vz",
"parent_id": "1b1syn3",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
]
]
| moderate |
[
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": "Right now we pay direct taxes on income, property and wealth and indirect taxes on sales and imports.\n\nPersonally I believe things should only be taxed once. This why property and wealth taxes are wrong because you are taxing same money multiple times. Same goes to sales taxes especially when different goods are taxed differently. Now depending on your lifestyle and choices your total tax burden might be different.\n\nBut if we consider wealth creation it is done only by one single mechanism. Work is beginning of all wealth and no wealth can be created without some sort of work. This is birth of money and IMHO only point where it should be divided for redistribution. Also I believe that all income should be treated equally and taxed on same progressive scale no matter if it's labor or capital gain.\n\nThe most common way large corporations avoid paying taxes is either going to region with a low corporate tax rate or buying IP licensing (that they owe themselves) from a shell company where there are no taxes. But if only income is taxed someone must be doing work somewhere and that work will be taxed. Companies can't avoid paying taxes by this scheme at all.\n\nTo maintain same tax income and tax burden, actual income tax needs to be risen appropriately.",
"date": "2024-03-15",
"id": "1bfactx",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Only income should be taxed",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bfactx/cmv_only_income_should_be_taxed/"
},
{
"author": "WheatBerryPie",
"body": "The thing is, the government has no incentive to remove different forms of tax. Each type of tax serves a different purpose and affects a different component of the economy: income tax affects productivity, wealth tax affects investment, property tax affects the property market, tariffs affect imports, etc etc. If you are the government, you follow a specific political ideology. When you have multiple levers to pull, you can change the taxation profile of the government to fit your political ideology. If you are isolationist, you can raise tariffs; if you want to prevent second home purchases, you can raise property tax, so on and so forth. It's just a smart way for the government to interfere with the economy.",
"date": "2024-03-15",
"id": "kuz6xqn",
"parent_id": "1bfactx",
"score": 13,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": "!delta I agree that having more control mechanisms (or levers) is better, but same can be achieved with giving appropriate tax breaks for income taxes.\n\nBut what comes to tariffs or import taxes those hinder economic progress and lower the productivity. There shouldn't be any ever. Same goes wealth taxes that are just double dipping and investments are already taxed through capital gain tax.\n\nThis is also ignoring the fact that income tax model prevents tax evasion and therefore increases tax revenue for the government. This alone should be enough incentive for them to adopt this model.",
"date": "2024-03-15",
"id": "kuz7fmd",
"parent_id": "kuz6xqn",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "DeltaBot",
"body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/WheatBerryPie ([6∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/WheatBerryPie)).\n\n^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
"date": "2024-03-15",
"id": "kuz7hu5",
"parent_id": "kuz7fmd",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
]
| [
[
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": "Right now we pay direct taxes on income, property and wealth and indirect taxes on sales and imports.\n\nPersonally I believe things should only be taxed once. This why property and wealth taxes are wrong because you are taxing same money multiple times. Same goes to sales taxes especially when different goods are taxed differently. Now depending on your lifestyle and choices your total tax burden might be different.\n\nBut if we consider wealth creation it is done only by one single mechanism. Work is beginning of all wealth and no wealth can be created without some sort of work. This is birth of money and IMHO only point where it should be divided for redistribution. Also I believe that all income should be treated equally and taxed on same progressive scale no matter if it's labor or capital gain.\n\nThe most common way large corporations avoid paying taxes is either going to region with a low corporate tax rate or buying IP licensing (that they owe themselves) from a shell company where there are no taxes. But if only income is taxed someone must be doing work somewhere and that work will be taxed. Companies can't avoid paying taxes by this scheme at all.\n\nTo maintain same tax income and tax burden, actual income tax needs to be risen appropriately.",
"date": "2024-03-15",
"id": "1bfactx",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Only income should be taxed",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bfactx/cmv_only_income_should_be_taxed/"
},
{
"author": "10ebbor10",
"body": ">Personally I believe things should only be taxed once\n\nThat would eliminate income tax, no? \nAfter all, your wages are paid by someone who must have earned that money, abd would have been taxed on it as sone point.\n\n>Companies can't avoid paying taxes by this scheme at all\n\nOn the contrary, avoiding taxes is trivial. Base your operations in a country which taxes only income, but do all your recruiting in a country which doesn't.",
"date": "2024-03-15",
"id": "kuz6zi2",
"parent_id": "1bfactx",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": ">That would eliminate income tax, no? After all, your wages are paid by someone who must have earned that money, abd would have been taxed on it as sone point.\n\n>\n\nWork creates more wealth and that wealth is taxed. Sales or profits company get are not taxed. Only wealth you created.\n\n>Base your operations in a country which taxes only income, but do all your recruiting in a country which doesn't.\n\nIf you operate in country where only income is taxed, all your employees are paying tax. You can't avoid paying these taxes because those employees are located there.",
"date": "2024-03-15",
"id": "kuz7v7j",
"parent_id": "kuz6zi2",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": "Right now we pay direct taxes on income, property and wealth and indirect taxes on sales and imports.\n\nPersonally I believe things should only be taxed once. This why property and wealth taxes are wrong because you are taxing same money multiple times. Same goes to sales taxes especially when different goods are taxed differently. Now depending on your lifestyle and choices your total tax burden might be different.\n\nBut if we consider wealth creation it is done only by one single mechanism. Work is beginning of all wealth and no wealth can be created without some sort of work. This is birth of money and IMHO only point where it should be divided for redistribution. Also I believe that all income should be treated equally and taxed on same progressive scale no matter if it's labor or capital gain.\n\nThe most common way large corporations avoid paying taxes is either going to region with a low corporate tax rate or buying IP licensing (that they owe themselves) from a shell company where there are no taxes. But if only income is taxed someone must be doing work somewhere and that work will be taxed. Companies can't avoid paying taxes by this scheme at all.\n\nTo maintain same tax income and tax burden, actual income tax needs to be risen appropriately.",
"date": "2024-03-15",
"id": "1bfactx",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Only income should be taxed",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bfactx/cmv_only_income_should_be_taxed/"
},
{
"author": "RedMarsRepublic",
"body": "Horrible idea, the richest people in the world aren't making money from work at all, it's all from investments and capital gains, this would just enlarge the gap between rich and poor even more.",
"date": "2024-03-15",
"id": "kuz73rg",
"parent_id": "1bfactx",
"score": 14,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": "Capital gain should be taxed with same bracket as labor gain. I said this at end of paragraph three.",
"date": "2024-03-15",
"id": "kuz7kxt",
"parent_id": "kuz73rg",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": "Right now we pay direct taxes on income, property and wealth and indirect taxes on sales and imports.\n\nPersonally I believe things should only be taxed once. This why property and wealth taxes are wrong because you are taxing same money multiple times. Same goes to sales taxes especially when different goods are taxed differently. Now depending on your lifestyle and choices your total tax burden might be different.\n\nBut if we consider wealth creation it is done only by one single mechanism. Work is beginning of all wealth and no wealth can be created without some sort of work. This is birth of money and IMHO only point where it should be divided for redistribution. Also I believe that all income should be treated equally and taxed on same progressive scale no matter if it's labor or capital gain.\n\nThe most common way large corporations avoid paying taxes is either going to region with a low corporate tax rate or buying IP licensing (that they owe themselves) from a shell company where there are no taxes. But if only income is taxed someone must be doing work somewhere and that work will be taxed. Companies can't avoid paying taxes by this scheme at all.\n\nTo maintain same tax income and tax burden, actual income tax needs to be risen appropriately.",
"date": "2024-03-15",
"id": "1bfactx",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Only income should be taxed",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bfactx/cmv_only_income_should_be_taxed/"
},
{
"author": "LentilDrink",
"body": "Pollution should definitely be taxed.",
"date": "2024-03-15",
"id": "kuz8sou",
"parent_id": "1bfactx",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": "Right now we pay direct taxes on income, property and wealth and indirect taxes on sales and imports.\n\nPersonally I believe things should only be taxed once. This why property and wealth taxes are wrong because you are taxing same money multiple times. Same goes to sales taxes especially when different goods are taxed differently. Now depending on your lifestyle and choices your total tax burden might be different.\n\nBut if we consider wealth creation it is done only by one single mechanism. Work is beginning of all wealth and no wealth can be created without some sort of work. This is birth of money and IMHO only point where it should be divided for redistribution. Also I believe that all income should be treated equally and taxed on same progressive scale no matter if it's labor or capital gain.\n\nThe most common way large corporations avoid paying taxes is either going to region with a low corporate tax rate or buying IP licensing (that they owe themselves) from a shell company where there are no taxes. But if only income is taxed someone must be doing work somewhere and that work will be taxed. Companies can't avoid paying taxes by this scheme at all.\n\nTo maintain same tax income and tax burden, actual income tax needs to be risen appropriately.",
"date": "2024-03-15",
"id": "1bfactx",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Only income should be taxed",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bfactx/cmv_only_income_should_be_taxed/"
},
{
"author": "poprostumort",
"body": ">This why property and wealth taxes are wrong because you are taxing same money multiple times\n\nProblem is that more property and wealth causes you to use shared resources more. Every property relies on support from government that is maintaining roads, sewage systems etc. As for wealth - using it also puts burden on shared parts. So you need the way for charging for that as getting rid of it would need that someone who earned enough money to stop working can use those services and not pay taxes that cover costs generated by them using their wealth and property.\n\n>But if we consider wealth creation it is done only by one single mechanism.\n\nThis is oversimplification. Yes, the \"beginning of all wealth\" is work, but later you can use wealth to substitute for work. You can hire people to do work for you and buy machines to work automated. This means that you as a person gathering wealth are not subject to income taxes and tax burden is switched to people working for you - meaning that they are the ones paying taxes to finance your wealth generation.\n\nThis means that I can incorporate and start to gain wealth via work of my employees - and if I am successful, this means I will not pay tax on my use of this wealth (as I can have it to be distributed to me in a way that is not considered income). At the same time the government tax spending does not change - which means that missing taxes have to be taken from somewhere. In our scenario there is only an income tax so the whole burden would fall on people who are working in my company. This means that workers will earn less, while I can enjoy the benefits of my wealth uninterrupted by any taxes. Don't you see a problem there?\n\nHonestly, if we would need to get rid of a tax to simplify the code - income would be the one to go. It is most counterproductive tax as it directly punishes you for working - every dollar you made working is taxed, while other ways of wealth creation and usage can avoid that \"problem\".\n\nThe most logical way to structure a tax system is to tax at spending, not at income. After all this would incentivize investments over spending and make it much harder to dodge taxes.",
"date": "2024-03-15",
"id": "kuza0v6",
"parent_id": "1bfactx",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "dmc_2930",
"body": ">The most logical way to structure a tax system is to tax at spending, not at income. After all this would incentivize investments over spending and make it much harder to dodge taxes.\n\nThis shifts the tax burden tremendously to those with less earnings/wealth. It's extremely regressive.",
"date": "2024-03-15",
"id": "kuzfndp",
"parent_id": "kuza0v6",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": "Right now we pay direct taxes on income, property and wealth and indirect taxes on sales and imports.\n\nPersonally I believe things should only be taxed once. This why property and wealth taxes are wrong because you are taxing same money multiple times. Same goes to sales taxes especially when different goods are taxed differently. Now depending on your lifestyle and choices your total tax burden might be different.\n\nBut if we consider wealth creation it is done only by one single mechanism. Work is beginning of all wealth and no wealth can be created without some sort of work. This is birth of money and IMHO only point where it should be divided for redistribution. Also I believe that all income should be treated equally and taxed on same progressive scale no matter if it's labor or capital gain.\n\nThe most common way large corporations avoid paying taxes is either going to region with a low corporate tax rate or buying IP licensing (that they owe themselves) from a shell company where there are no taxes. But if only income is taxed someone must be doing work somewhere and that work will be taxed. Companies can't avoid paying taxes by this scheme at all.\n\nTo maintain same tax income and tax burden, actual income tax needs to be risen appropriately.",
"date": "2024-03-15",
"id": "1bfactx",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Only income should be taxed",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bfactx/cmv_only_income_should_be_taxed/"
},
{
"author": "Local-Ad6658",
"body": "I think your question comes from low level of understanding how accounting works.\n\nIncome is not profit. Companies can very well operate on a loss for years, supplied by loans or stock emission. This is actually the most common way to skip taxes - whatever you gain, invest and show overall zero or loss, while growing each year.\n\nTaxing pure income side would kill trade. Technically speaking, one good can change hands many times, and do we treat each sale price as income?\n\nEven if we go for pure income to skip this profit/loss discussion, you can get significantly wealthier by having no income, when your possesions appreciate in value, like houses or stocks. \n\nYou can get income, by just having stuff, like inherited land, stocks, companies. And you will be getting rich faster than average worker Joe, just by leasing land or means of production. Even with 50% income tax. \n\nI could go on, but there is practical side why we have more types of taxes. There is plenty of ways, and proposals, to simplify the system, but just one income tax is pipedream.",
"date": "2024-03-15",
"id": "kuzcois",
"parent_id": "1bfactx",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": "Right now we pay direct taxes on income, property and wealth and indirect taxes on sales and imports.\n\nPersonally I believe things should only be taxed once. This why property and wealth taxes are wrong because you are taxing same money multiple times. Same goes to sales taxes especially when different goods are taxed differently. Now depending on your lifestyle and choices your total tax burden might be different.\n\nBut if we consider wealth creation it is done only by one single mechanism. Work is beginning of all wealth and no wealth can be created without some sort of work. This is birth of money and IMHO only point where it should be divided for redistribution. Also I believe that all income should be treated equally and taxed on same progressive scale no matter if it's labor or capital gain.\n\nThe most common way large corporations avoid paying taxes is either going to region with a low corporate tax rate or buying IP licensing (that they owe themselves) from a shell company where there are no taxes. But if only income is taxed someone must be doing work somewhere and that work will be taxed. Companies can't avoid paying taxes by this scheme at all.\n\nTo maintain same tax income and tax burden, actual income tax needs to be risen appropriately.",
"date": "2024-03-15",
"id": "1bfactx",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Only income should be taxed",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bfactx/cmv_only_income_should_be_taxed/"
},
{
"author": "Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho",
"body": "Have you ever heard about Georgism? You’re right that there are a lot of inefficient taxes (corporate taxes) and outright harmful ones (tariffs), but the best tax is a land tax. It has the lowest negative externalities, is the hardest to avoid, and discourages the least wealth creation.",
"date": "2024-03-15",
"id": "kuzcr2u",
"parent_id": "1bfactx",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": "Right now we pay direct taxes on income, property and wealth and indirect taxes on sales and imports.\n\nPersonally I believe things should only be taxed once. This why property and wealth taxes are wrong because you are taxing same money multiple times. Same goes to sales taxes especially when different goods are taxed differently. Now depending on your lifestyle and choices your total tax burden might be different.\n\nBut if we consider wealth creation it is done only by one single mechanism. Work is beginning of all wealth and no wealth can be created without some sort of work. This is birth of money and IMHO only point where it should be divided for redistribution. Also I believe that all income should be treated equally and taxed on same progressive scale no matter if it's labor or capital gain.\n\nThe most common way large corporations avoid paying taxes is either going to region with a low corporate tax rate or buying IP licensing (that they owe themselves) from a shell company where there are no taxes. But if only income is taxed someone must be doing work somewhere and that work will be taxed. Companies can't avoid paying taxes by this scheme at all.\n\nTo maintain same tax income and tax burden, actual income tax needs to be risen appropriately.",
"date": "2024-03-15",
"id": "1bfactx",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Only income should be taxed",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bfactx/cmv_only_income_should_be_taxed/"
},
{
"author": "Dennis_enzo",
"body": "Property tax is fair because you take a piece of property away from society and the public for your personal use. So you should pay back to society to compensate for that. This property usually doesn't exist in a vacuum; if it's a building it is dependant on sewers and power and public roads to function properly. If you're a company, you rely on a functional society and infrastructure to have employees work for you .And even when it's just a piece of land with a forest on it, you're still relying on society and the government to enforce the rules that keeps other people away from your land. You pay property tax so that the police will come and stop me when I try to build a house in your forest. \n\nSimilar things can be said for a wealth tax. Wealth is also not created in a vacuum. You can only become wealthy because there is a functional society allowing you to, which costs money to maintain. The wealth is taken away from society, in other words from the rest of us. Hoarding wealth instead of reinserting it into society is bad for the economy and by extension for everyone else, so having to pay taxes when you do that seems fair to me.",
"date": "2024-03-15",
"id": "kuzd8tk",
"parent_id": "1bfactx",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": "Right now we pay direct taxes on income, property and wealth and indirect taxes on sales and imports.\n\nPersonally I believe things should only be taxed once. This why property and wealth taxes are wrong because you are taxing same money multiple times. Same goes to sales taxes especially when different goods are taxed differently. Now depending on your lifestyle and choices your total tax burden might be different.\n\nBut if we consider wealth creation it is done only by one single mechanism. Work is beginning of all wealth and no wealth can be created without some sort of work. This is birth of money and IMHO only point where it should be divided for redistribution. Also I believe that all income should be treated equally and taxed on same progressive scale no matter if it's labor or capital gain.\n\nThe most common way large corporations avoid paying taxes is either going to region with a low corporate tax rate or buying IP licensing (that they owe themselves) from a shell company where there are no taxes. But if only income is taxed someone must be doing work somewhere and that work will be taxed. Companies can't avoid paying taxes by this scheme at all.\n\nTo maintain same tax income and tax burden, actual income tax needs to be risen appropriately.",
"date": "2024-03-15",
"id": "1bfactx",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Only income should be taxed",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bfactx/cmv_only_income_should_be_taxed/"
},
{
"author": "KCBSR",
"body": "> Personally I believe things should only be taxed once.\n\nWhy? Taxation has multiple roles. \n\nTo pay for some things sure, but There are other reasons to prevent a concentration of wealth, to protect industries from going bankrupt due to international competition etc..\n\n1. In inheritance tax for example would result i mass concentration of wealth in the hands of incredibly few people. Current levels of wealth concentration are already dangerous for democrasy, freedom, and liveihoods. Making it worse is a more dangerous road to go down. \nIt would also require a higher tax burden on the poor as now the income from rich inheritances would be gone. \n\n2. That may be not too compelling given your, I am assuming libertarian?, mindset, there is also the issue of protecting industry and markets. E.g. China deliveratley subsidises its steel manufacturing to gain a greater market share and develop a monopoly. One of the few ways the US can stop this is taxing it with Tarrifs at the entry to prevent artificially low prices?\n\n>To maintain same tax income and tax burden, actual income tax needs to be risen appropriately.\n\n\nNot sure on the cost in the US, but in the UK national taxation only covers about 30% of what we spend, the rest is other forms of tax (business rates, tariffs etc..) so to rise appropriately would mean more than double. seems like a lot.",
"date": "2024-03-15",
"id": "kuze6ey",
"parent_id": "1bfactx",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": "Right now we pay direct taxes on income, property and wealth and indirect taxes on sales and imports.\n\nPersonally I believe things should only be taxed once. This why property and wealth taxes are wrong because you are taxing same money multiple times. Same goes to sales taxes especially when different goods are taxed differently. Now depending on your lifestyle and choices your total tax burden might be different.\n\nBut if we consider wealth creation it is done only by one single mechanism. Work is beginning of all wealth and no wealth can be created without some sort of work. This is birth of money and IMHO only point where it should be divided for redistribution. Also I believe that all income should be treated equally and taxed on same progressive scale no matter if it's labor or capital gain.\n\nThe most common way large corporations avoid paying taxes is either going to region with a low corporate tax rate or buying IP licensing (that they owe themselves) from a shell company where there are no taxes. But if only income is taxed someone must be doing work somewhere and that work will be taxed. Companies can't avoid paying taxes by this scheme at all.\n\nTo maintain same tax income and tax burden, actual income tax needs to be risen appropriately.",
"date": "2024-03-15",
"id": "1bfactx",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Only income should be taxed",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bfactx/cmv_only_income_should_be_taxed/"
},
{
"author": "LaCroixLimon",
"body": "The most fair way to tax people is on consumption. \nPeople often say consumption taxes are regressive, but this is not true. You can pick and choose exactly what items/services to tax and which of those to be tax free. You can do this in a way that the average working person pays almost zero taxes while the wealthy pay their fair share.",
"date": "2024-03-15",
"id": "kuzer3x",
"parent_id": "1bfactx",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": "Right now we pay direct taxes on income, property and wealth and indirect taxes on sales and imports.\n\nPersonally I believe things should only be taxed once. This why property and wealth taxes are wrong because you are taxing same money multiple times. Same goes to sales taxes especially when different goods are taxed differently. Now depending on your lifestyle and choices your total tax burden might be different.\n\nBut if we consider wealth creation it is done only by one single mechanism. Work is beginning of all wealth and no wealth can be created without some sort of work. This is birth of money and IMHO only point where it should be divided for redistribution. Also I believe that all income should be treated equally and taxed on same progressive scale no matter if it's labor or capital gain.\n\nThe most common way large corporations avoid paying taxes is either going to region with a low corporate tax rate or buying IP licensing (that they owe themselves) from a shell company where there are no taxes. But if only income is taxed someone must be doing work somewhere and that work will be taxed. Companies can't avoid paying taxes by this scheme at all.\n\nTo maintain same tax income and tax burden, actual income tax needs to be risen appropriately.",
"date": "2024-03-15",
"id": "1bfactx",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Only income should be taxed",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bfactx/cmv_only_income_should_be_taxed/"
},
{
"author": "ta_mataia",
"body": "In today's world, all money is fiat. All money is created by governments in order to fuel work, which is the source of all wealth. Given that money is all created by governments, this requires governments to create a need for money so that we use it. Governments do this by taxation. Taxation takes money out of the economy and creates a demand for it, since now we all need money in order to pay our taxes. With this in mind, it doesn't really matter how many times a dollar is taxed, because the main purpose is simply to remove money from the economy. In fact makes it a good idea to tax static wealth that people are hoarding, because that is money that is not moving around and fueling the economy.",
"date": "2024-03-15",
"id": "kuzev10",
"parent_id": "1bfactx",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": "Right now we pay direct taxes on income, property and wealth and indirect taxes on sales and imports.\n\nPersonally I believe things should only be taxed once. This why property and wealth taxes are wrong because you are taxing same money multiple times. Same goes to sales taxes especially when different goods are taxed differently. Now depending on your lifestyle and choices your total tax burden might be different.\n\nBut if we consider wealth creation it is done only by one single mechanism. Work is beginning of all wealth and no wealth can be created without some sort of work. This is birth of money and IMHO only point where it should be divided for redistribution. Also I believe that all income should be treated equally and taxed on same progressive scale no matter if it's labor or capital gain.\n\nThe most common way large corporations avoid paying taxes is either going to region with a low corporate tax rate or buying IP licensing (that they owe themselves) from a shell company where there are no taxes. But if only income is taxed someone must be doing work somewhere and that work will be taxed. Companies can't avoid paying taxes by this scheme at all.\n\nTo maintain same tax income and tax burden, actual income tax needs to be risen appropriately.",
"date": "2024-03-15",
"id": "1bfactx",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Only income should be taxed",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bfactx/cmv_only_income_should_be_taxed/"
},
{
"author": "c0i9z",
"body": "Everyone who has property now bought taxable property. To turn it into non-taxable property would be a massive transfer of wealth to property owners.",
"date": "2024-03-15",
"id": "kuzh1gc",
"parent_id": "1bfactx",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": "Right now we pay direct taxes on income, property and wealth and indirect taxes on sales and imports.\n\nPersonally I believe things should only be taxed once. This why property and wealth taxes are wrong because you are taxing same money multiple times. Same goes to sales taxes especially when different goods are taxed differently. Now depending on your lifestyle and choices your total tax burden might be different.\n\nBut if we consider wealth creation it is done only by one single mechanism. Work is beginning of all wealth and no wealth can be created without some sort of work. This is birth of money and IMHO only point where it should be divided for redistribution. Also I believe that all income should be treated equally and taxed on same progressive scale no matter if it's labor or capital gain.\n\nThe most common way large corporations avoid paying taxes is either going to region with a low corporate tax rate or buying IP licensing (that they owe themselves) from a shell company where there are no taxes. But if only income is taxed someone must be doing work somewhere and that work will be taxed. Companies can't avoid paying taxes by this scheme at all.\n\nTo maintain same tax income and tax burden, actual income tax needs to be risen appropriately.",
"date": "2024-03-15",
"id": "1bfactx",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Only income should be taxed",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bfactx/cmv_only_income_should_be_taxed/"
},
{
"author": "Flipsider99",
"body": "You know, I really like your argument. It's quite convincing! If it were put into practice, I don't think it'd be a bad idea at all.\n\nAnd yet, I can't help but detect something that I feel like I could argue against. And it's a flaw that I feel like I tend to notice around political arguments a lot... I'm not sure if I can make this argument convincingly, but I'll throw it out there and see what you think.\n\nI think in life, as well as in politics, people overvalue purity of ideas. This can actually be a good thing, but I think when it comes to politics, it tends to result in a gravitation towards exteme ideas, when often a better solution would be something messier, something more balanced and with compromises. This is more of an overall philosophical point, but I think it may apply to your argument as well.\n\nYou say \"I believe in only taxing things once,\" and on the surface this seems to make sense, but... the amount of times things are taxed actually really doesn't say anything about fairness. The amount is what really makes it fair, moreso than the amount of times being taxed. Now granted, the more ways the government finds to tax us, the more they can seemingly get away with taxing a higher amount without it being noticed, of course you'd want to make that point and you'd be right. But there are pros and cons to every approach, including for the idea of income taxes, and I think that sales tax has it's merits as well.\n\nI think you just always want to ask yourself, is this really the best result because I honestly think it will have the best results? Or do I want to believe that because the purity of the idea is appealing?",
"date": "2024-03-15",
"id": "kuzjt3v",
"parent_id": "1bfactx",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": ">when often a better solution would be something messier, something more balanced and with compromises.\n\nFor there to be balance and compromise there must be some benefit in the alternative.\n\nRight now I don't see any benefit of having complicated tax system that only few highly paid individuals understand and are hired to exploit it. In this case simplicity means that there is nowhere to hide.",
"date": "2024-03-15",
"id": "kuzpfv2",
"parent_id": "kuzjt3v",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": "Right now we pay direct taxes on income, property and wealth and indirect taxes on sales and imports.\n\nPersonally I believe things should only be taxed once. This why property and wealth taxes are wrong because you are taxing same money multiple times. Same goes to sales taxes especially when different goods are taxed differently. Now depending on your lifestyle and choices your total tax burden might be different.\n\nBut if we consider wealth creation it is done only by one single mechanism. Work is beginning of all wealth and no wealth can be created without some sort of work. This is birth of money and IMHO only point where it should be divided for redistribution. Also I believe that all income should be treated equally and taxed on same progressive scale no matter if it's labor or capital gain.\n\nThe most common way large corporations avoid paying taxes is either going to region with a low corporate tax rate or buying IP licensing (that they owe themselves) from a shell company where there are no taxes. But if only income is taxed someone must be doing work somewhere and that work will be taxed. Companies can't avoid paying taxes by this scheme at all.\n\nTo maintain same tax income and tax burden, actual income tax needs to be risen appropriately.",
"date": "2024-03-15",
"id": "1bfactx",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Only income should be taxed",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bfactx/cmv_only_income_should_be_taxed/"
},
{
"author": "jerimiahWhiteWhale",
"body": "The unimproved value of land should be taxed, because it is not distortionary. There is a fixed quantity of land, and by taxing its unimproved value, owners are incentivized to utilize the land for productive means. \n\nGoods with negative externalities should also be taxed. Cigarettes, alcohol, drugs, and greenhouse gas emissions should all be taxed so that their market price approaches their true economic costs. \n\nI also agree that income should be taxed, primarily to keep inequality in check, but the cases for taxing the two categories above are pretty strong.",
"date": "2024-03-15",
"id": "kuzl9aj",
"parent_id": "1bfactx",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": "Right now we pay direct taxes on income, property and wealth and indirect taxes on sales and imports.\n\nPersonally I believe things should only be taxed once. This why property and wealth taxes are wrong because you are taxing same money multiple times. Same goes to sales taxes especially when different goods are taxed differently. Now depending on your lifestyle and choices your total tax burden might be different.\n\nBut if we consider wealth creation it is done only by one single mechanism. Work is beginning of all wealth and no wealth can be created without some sort of work. This is birth of money and IMHO only point where it should be divided for redistribution. Also I believe that all income should be treated equally and taxed on same progressive scale no matter if it's labor or capital gain.\n\nThe most common way large corporations avoid paying taxes is either going to region with a low corporate tax rate or buying IP licensing (that they owe themselves) from a shell company where there are no taxes. But if only income is taxed someone must be doing work somewhere and that work will be taxed. Companies can't avoid paying taxes by this scheme at all.\n\nTo maintain same tax income and tax burden, actual income tax needs to be risen appropriately.",
"date": "2024-03-15",
"id": "1bfactx",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Only income should be taxed",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bfactx/cmv_only_income_should_be_taxed/"
},
{
"author": "themcos",
"body": "> Now depending on your lifestyle and choices your total tax burden might be different.\n\n\nYMMV on a case by case basis, but in general this is a feature not a bug. The fact that tax policy can be used as an incentive towards / away from certain lifestyles and choices is a useful knob for policy. As with all knobs, it can be used for good or bad, but it's still a useful tool.",
"date": "2024-03-15",
"id": "kuzm0jz",
"parent_id": "1bfactx",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": "Right now we pay direct taxes on income, property and wealth and indirect taxes on sales and imports.\n\nPersonally I believe things should only be taxed once. This why property and wealth taxes are wrong because you are taxing same money multiple times. Same goes to sales taxes especially when different goods are taxed differently. Now depending on your lifestyle and choices your total tax burden might be different.\n\nBut if we consider wealth creation it is done only by one single mechanism. Work is beginning of all wealth and no wealth can be created without some sort of work. This is birth of money and IMHO only point where it should be divided for redistribution. Also I believe that all income should be treated equally and taxed on same progressive scale no matter if it's labor or capital gain.\n\nThe most common way large corporations avoid paying taxes is either going to region with a low corporate tax rate or buying IP licensing (that they owe themselves) from a shell company where there are no taxes. But if only income is taxed someone must be doing work somewhere and that work will be taxed. Companies can't avoid paying taxes by this scheme at all.\n\nTo maintain same tax income and tax burden, actual income tax needs to be risen appropriately.",
"date": "2024-03-15",
"id": "1bfactx",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Only income should be taxed",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bfactx/cmv_only_income_should_be_taxed/"
},
{
"author": "RexRatio",
"body": ">Only income should be taxed\n\nSure, make it even easier for the rich. \n\nHere's what's already happening and would exponentially increase happening:\n\nThe richest people can put all their wealth in trusts and holdings, the overhead cost for them (accounting etc.) is negligible and they officially pay themselves a modest salary, on which the income tax is nothing compared to their actual wealth. \n\nSo holding investments within trusts or offshore accounts offers tax advantages but is only affordable for wealthy individuals. They are thus able to minimize tax liabilities on income, capital gains, or inheritance.",
"date": "2024-03-15",
"id": "kuznth7",
"parent_id": "1bfactx",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": "Right now we pay direct taxes on income, property and wealth and indirect taxes on sales and imports.\n\nPersonally I believe things should only be taxed once. This why property and wealth taxes are wrong because you are taxing same money multiple times. Same goes to sales taxes especially when different goods are taxed differently. Now depending on your lifestyle and choices your total tax burden might be different.\n\nBut if we consider wealth creation it is done only by one single mechanism. Work is beginning of all wealth and no wealth can be created without some sort of work. This is birth of money and IMHO only point where it should be divided for redistribution. Also I believe that all income should be treated equally and taxed on same progressive scale no matter if it's labor or capital gain.\n\nThe most common way large corporations avoid paying taxes is either going to region with a low corporate tax rate or buying IP licensing (that they owe themselves) from a shell company where there are no taxes. But if only income is taxed someone must be doing work somewhere and that work will be taxed. Companies can't avoid paying taxes by this scheme at all.\n\nTo maintain same tax income and tax burden, actual income tax needs to be risen appropriately.",
"date": "2024-03-15",
"id": "1bfactx",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Only income should be taxed",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bfactx/cmv_only_income_should_be_taxed/"
},
{
"author": "shaffe04gt",
"body": "Look ill admit I don't like paying property taxes, but they dp have benefits.\n\nOur town has amazing schools, amazing park district facilities, biking and walking trails. Our town puts on great events all summer long. That's all paid for with property taxes.",
"date": "2024-03-15",
"id": "kuzowx2",
"parent_id": "1bfactx",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": "Right now we pay direct taxes on income, property and wealth and indirect taxes on sales and imports.\n\nPersonally I believe things should only be taxed once. This why property and wealth taxes are wrong because you are taxing same money multiple times. Same goes to sales taxes especially when different goods are taxed differently. Now depending on your lifestyle and choices your total tax burden might be different.\n\nBut if we consider wealth creation it is done only by one single mechanism. Work is beginning of all wealth and no wealth can be created without some sort of work. This is birth of money and IMHO only point where it should be divided for redistribution. Also I believe that all income should be treated equally and taxed on same progressive scale no matter if it's labor or capital gain.\n\nThe most common way large corporations avoid paying taxes is either going to region with a low corporate tax rate or buying IP licensing (that they owe themselves) from a shell company where there are no taxes. But if only income is taxed someone must be doing work somewhere and that work will be taxed. Companies can't avoid paying taxes by this scheme at all.\n\nTo maintain same tax income and tax burden, actual income tax needs to be risen appropriately.",
"date": "2024-03-15",
"id": "1bfactx",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Only income should be taxed",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bfactx/cmv_only_income_should_be_taxed/"
},
{
"author": "shaffe04gt",
"body": "Look ill admit I don't like paying property taxes, but they dp have benefits.\n\nOur town has amazing schools, amazing park district facilities, biking and walking trails. Our town puts on great events all summer long. That's all paid for with property taxes.",
"date": "2024-03-15",
"id": "kuzoxi8",
"parent_id": "1bfactx",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": "Right now we pay direct taxes on income, property and wealth and indirect taxes on sales and imports.\n\nPersonally I believe things should only be taxed once. This why property and wealth taxes are wrong because you are taxing same money multiple times. Same goes to sales taxes especially when different goods are taxed differently. Now depending on your lifestyle and choices your total tax burden might be different.\n\nBut if we consider wealth creation it is done only by one single mechanism. Work is beginning of all wealth and no wealth can be created without some sort of work. This is birth of money and IMHO only point where it should be divided for redistribution. Also I believe that all income should be treated equally and taxed on same progressive scale no matter if it's labor or capital gain.\n\nThe most common way large corporations avoid paying taxes is either going to region with a low corporate tax rate or buying IP licensing (that they owe themselves) from a shell company where there are no taxes. But if only income is taxed someone must be doing work somewhere and that work will be taxed. Companies can't avoid paying taxes by this scheme at all.\n\nTo maintain same tax income and tax burden, actual income tax needs to be risen appropriately.",
"date": "2024-03-15",
"id": "1bfactx",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Only income should be taxed",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bfactx/cmv_only_income_should_be_taxed/"
},
{
"author": "SatisfactoryLoaf",
"body": ">Personally I believe things should only be taxed once.\n\nA tax isn't a punishment. \n\nYou tax things you want less of, and you subsidize things you want more of. The government doesn't need x% of my income - they could just print new bills, but income taxation is a way to regulate and influence wealth distribution and money accumulation. Whether that's effective or not depends on the government's goal and taxation methods. \n\nTaxing property is controlling of a different resource than wealth. Subsidizing first time homeowners would be an exception, showing something the government \\[presumably\\] wants more of. \n\nIt makes no sense to \"only tax once.\" The government wants multiple things to happen.",
"date": "2024-03-15",
"id": "kuzq994",
"parent_id": "1bfactx",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": "Right now we pay direct taxes on income, property and wealth and indirect taxes on sales and imports.\n\nPersonally I believe things should only be taxed once. This why property and wealth taxes are wrong because you are taxing same money multiple times. Same goes to sales taxes especially when different goods are taxed differently. Now depending on your lifestyle and choices your total tax burden might be different.\n\nBut if we consider wealth creation it is done only by one single mechanism. Work is beginning of all wealth and no wealth can be created without some sort of work. This is birth of money and IMHO only point where it should be divided for redistribution. Also I believe that all income should be treated equally and taxed on same progressive scale no matter if it's labor or capital gain.\n\nThe most common way large corporations avoid paying taxes is either going to region with a low corporate tax rate or buying IP licensing (that they owe themselves) from a shell company where there are no taxes. But if only income is taxed someone must be doing work somewhere and that work will be taxed. Companies can't avoid paying taxes by this scheme at all.\n\nTo maintain same tax income and tax burden, actual income tax needs to be risen appropriately.",
"date": "2024-03-15",
"id": "1bfactx",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Only income should be taxed",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bfactx/cmv_only_income_should_be_taxed/"
},
{
"author": "kingpatzer",
"body": "I'll just talk about property taxes. \n\n\nMy city doesn't have an income tax. However, my property requires services from the city. Who should pay the tax to fund those services? Me, who owns the property and makes a very healthy 6-figure income, or my adult 22-year-old kid who lives with me and is working a $15/hr gig?",
"date": "2024-03-15",
"id": "kuzqb5k",
"parent_id": "1bfactx",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "GeorgeWhorewell1894",
"body": ">Who should pay the tax to fund those services?\n\nNobody. They should be charged to people who use them based on their usage.",
"date": "2024-03-15",
"id": "kv0mn8t",
"parent_id": "kuzqb5k",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": "Right now we pay direct taxes on income, property and wealth and indirect taxes on sales and imports.\n\nPersonally I believe things should only be taxed once. This why property and wealth taxes are wrong because you are taxing same money multiple times. Same goes to sales taxes especially when different goods are taxed differently. Now depending on your lifestyle and choices your total tax burden might be different.\n\nBut if we consider wealth creation it is done only by one single mechanism. Work is beginning of all wealth and no wealth can be created without some sort of work. This is birth of money and IMHO only point where it should be divided for redistribution. Also I believe that all income should be treated equally and taxed on same progressive scale no matter if it's labor or capital gain.\n\nThe most common way large corporations avoid paying taxes is either going to region with a low corporate tax rate or buying IP licensing (that they owe themselves) from a shell company where there are no taxes. But if only income is taxed someone must be doing work somewhere and that work will be taxed. Companies can't avoid paying taxes by this scheme at all.\n\nTo maintain same tax income and tax burden, actual income tax needs to be risen appropriately.",
"date": "2024-03-15",
"id": "1bfactx",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Only income should be taxed",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bfactx/cmv_only_income_should_be_taxed/"
},
{
"author": "breadloaves77",
"body": "These are very interesting points you make. \n \nI've always thought that income tax should be eliminated in favor of a monstrous increase in sales tax on everything. On a scale - almost none on bread, like 100% on a Ferarri. \n \nThen that basically (basically) being the only tax there is. This is a very rough, under-nuanced way of describing it.\n\nIt would eliminate tons of fraud and tax trickery on every level. Everyone, including tax dodgers and criminals of all stripes spend money. It would also help close a lot of wealth gaps, as the government would be getting more to help those to have less.",
"date": "2024-03-15",
"id": "kuzsfy4",
"parent_id": "1bfactx",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": "Right now we pay direct taxes on income, property and wealth and indirect taxes on sales and imports.\n\nPersonally I believe things should only be taxed once. This why property and wealth taxes are wrong because you are taxing same money multiple times. Same goes to sales taxes especially when different goods are taxed differently. Now depending on your lifestyle and choices your total tax burden might be different.\n\nBut if we consider wealth creation it is done only by one single mechanism. Work is beginning of all wealth and no wealth can be created without some sort of work. This is birth of money and IMHO only point where it should be divided for redistribution. Also I believe that all income should be treated equally and taxed on same progressive scale no matter if it's labor or capital gain.\n\nThe most common way large corporations avoid paying taxes is either going to region with a low corporate tax rate or buying IP licensing (that they owe themselves) from a shell company where there are no taxes. But if only income is taxed someone must be doing work somewhere and that work will be taxed. Companies can't avoid paying taxes by this scheme at all.\n\nTo maintain same tax income and tax burden, actual income tax needs to be risen appropriately.",
"date": "2024-03-15",
"id": "1bfactx",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Only income should be taxed",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bfactx/cmv_only_income_should_be_taxed/"
},
{
"author": "Illustrious_Ring_517",
"body": "Only money spent should be taxed",
"date": "2024-03-15",
"id": "kuzsmth",
"parent_id": "1bfactx",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": "And this allows companies and rich individuals to avoid taxes.",
"date": "2024-03-15",
"id": "kv003w2",
"parent_id": "kuzsmth",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": "Right now we pay direct taxes on income, property and wealth and indirect taxes on sales and imports.\n\nPersonally I believe things should only be taxed once. This why property and wealth taxes are wrong because you are taxing same money multiple times. Same goes to sales taxes especially when different goods are taxed differently. Now depending on your lifestyle and choices your total tax burden might be different.\n\nBut if we consider wealth creation it is done only by one single mechanism. Work is beginning of all wealth and no wealth can be created without some sort of work. This is birth of money and IMHO only point where it should be divided for redistribution. Also I believe that all income should be treated equally and taxed on same progressive scale no matter if it's labor or capital gain.\n\nThe most common way large corporations avoid paying taxes is either going to region with a low corporate tax rate or buying IP licensing (that they owe themselves) from a shell company where there are no taxes. But if only income is taxed someone must be doing work somewhere and that work will be taxed. Companies can't avoid paying taxes by this scheme at all.\n\nTo maintain same tax income and tax burden, actual income tax needs to be risen appropriately.",
"date": "2024-03-15",
"id": "1bfactx",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Only income should be taxed",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bfactx/cmv_only_income_should_be_taxed/"
},
{
"author": "PromptStock5332",
"body": "Taxation is theft and theft is immoral. So nothing, including income should be taxed.",
"date": "2024-03-15",
"id": "kv046v8",
"parent_id": "1bfactx",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": "Right now we pay direct taxes on income, property and wealth and indirect taxes on sales and imports.\n\nPersonally I believe things should only be taxed once. This why property and wealth taxes are wrong because you are taxing same money multiple times. Same goes to sales taxes especially when different goods are taxed differently. Now depending on your lifestyle and choices your total tax burden might be different.\n\nBut if we consider wealth creation it is done only by one single mechanism. Work is beginning of all wealth and no wealth can be created without some sort of work. This is birth of money and IMHO only point where it should be divided for redistribution. Also I believe that all income should be treated equally and taxed on same progressive scale no matter if it's labor or capital gain.\n\nThe most common way large corporations avoid paying taxes is either going to region with a low corporate tax rate or buying IP licensing (that they owe themselves) from a shell company where there are no taxes. But if only income is taxed someone must be doing work somewhere and that work will be taxed. Companies can't avoid paying taxes by this scheme at all.\n\nTo maintain same tax income and tax burden, actual income tax needs to be risen appropriately.",
"date": "2024-03-15",
"id": "1bfactx",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Only income should be taxed",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bfactx/cmv_only_income_should_be_taxed/"
},
{
"author": "Rare_Year_2818",
"body": "Economists favor VATs and LVTs because they are less harmful to the economy. There's a strong argument that LVTs actually help the economy, because land owners are encouraged to use their land in an economically efficient manner and not just hoard it.",
"date": "2024-03-15",
"id": "kv05dbc",
"parent_id": "1bfactx",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "GeorgeWhorewell1894",
"body": "That's only good if your goal is to entirely ignore the people and just try to optimize the economy like it's some machine.",
"date": "2024-03-15",
"id": "kv0mufq",
"parent_id": "kv05dbc",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": "Right now we pay direct taxes on income, property and wealth and indirect taxes on sales and imports.\n\nPersonally I believe things should only be taxed once. This why property and wealth taxes are wrong because you are taxing same money multiple times. Same goes to sales taxes especially when different goods are taxed differently. Now depending on your lifestyle and choices your total tax burden might be different.\n\nBut if we consider wealth creation it is done only by one single mechanism. Work is beginning of all wealth and no wealth can be created without some sort of work. This is birth of money and IMHO only point where it should be divided for redistribution. Also I believe that all income should be treated equally and taxed on same progressive scale no matter if it's labor or capital gain.\n\nThe most common way large corporations avoid paying taxes is either going to region with a low corporate tax rate or buying IP licensing (that they owe themselves) from a shell company where there are no taxes. But if only income is taxed someone must be doing work somewhere and that work will be taxed. Companies can't avoid paying taxes by this scheme at all.\n\nTo maintain same tax income and tax burden, actual income tax needs to be risen appropriately.",
"date": "2024-03-15",
"id": "1bfactx",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Only income should be taxed",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bfactx/cmv_only_income_should_be_taxed/"
},
{
"author": "Ok-Crazy-6083",
"body": "How you should be taxed really depends on your views of government and centrally planned economies. The never-properly-ratified 16th Amendment, which was required to make income tax legal, is THE singular reason why we've had an explosion in the size of the federal government. You're not wrong in feeling like we should only be taxed once, but you've chosen the absolutely worst place to apply that tax.",
"date": "2024-03-15",
"id": "kv0crd6",
"parent_id": "1bfactx",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": "Right now we pay direct taxes on income, property and wealth and indirect taxes on sales and imports.\n\nPersonally I believe things should only be taxed once. This why property and wealth taxes are wrong because you are taxing same money multiple times. Same goes to sales taxes especially when different goods are taxed differently. Now depending on your lifestyle and choices your total tax burden might be different.\n\nBut if we consider wealth creation it is done only by one single mechanism. Work is beginning of all wealth and no wealth can be created without some sort of work. This is birth of money and IMHO only point where it should be divided for redistribution. Also I believe that all income should be treated equally and taxed on same progressive scale no matter if it's labor or capital gain.\n\nThe most common way large corporations avoid paying taxes is either going to region with a low corporate tax rate or buying IP licensing (that they owe themselves) from a shell company where there are no taxes. But if only income is taxed someone must be doing work somewhere and that work will be taxed. Companies can't avoid paying taxes by this scheme at all.\n\nTo maintain same tax income and tax burden, actual income tax needs to be risen appropriately.",
"date": "2024-03-15",
"id": "1bfactx",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Only income should be taxed",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bfactx/cmv_only_income_should_be_taxed/"
},
{
"author": "Affectionate_Money34",
"body": "To maintain your wealth, the government is doing things. Your property's value is heavily dependent on having drinkable water in the faucet, and also quite dependent on teachers in the area getting a salary. The wealth is created by work that is simply not done by you, yet you want to be exempt from paying for that work.\n\n\nAs for the company example, keep in mind that, due to compounding, the income tax you are discussing needs to be at a much average rate than today. Its very hard to imagine how this shifts the burden more towards people who's exclusive income is, well, income, from people who's making a substantial amount from capital and cam afford to delay realizing profits",
"date": "2024-03-15",
"id": "kv0vqgc",
"parent_id": "1bfactx",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": "Right now we pay direct taxes on income, property and wealth and indirect taxes on sales and imports.\n\nPersonally I believe things should only be taxed once. This why property and wealth taxes are wrong because you are taxing same money multiple times. Same goes to sales taxes especially when different goods are taxed differently. Now depending on your lifestyle and choices your total tax burden might be different.\n\nBut if we consider wealth creation it is done only by one single mechanism. Work is beginning of all wealth and no wealth can be created without some sort of work. This is birth of money and IMHO only point where it should be divided for redistribution. Also I believe that all income should be treated equally and taxed on same progressive scale no matter if it's labor or capital gain.\n\nThe most common way large corporations avoid paying taxes is either going to region with a low corporate tax rate or buying IP licensing (that they owe themselves) from a shell company where there are no taxes. But if only income is taxed someone must be doing work somewhere and that work will be taxed. Companies can't avoid paying taxes by this scheme at all.\n\nTo maintain same tax income and tax burden, actual income tax needs to be risen appropriately.",
"date": "2024-03-15",
"id": "1bfactx",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Only income should be taxed",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bfactx/cmv_only_income_should_be_taxed/"
},
{
"author": "Strange-Badger7263",
"body": "I believe the opposite all taxes should be on wealth. In a capitalist society your value is based on your wealth. The more wealth you have the more you have to lose. Taxes are used to fund the underlying framework of society. That framework is more beneficial to the person with more wealth because they have more wealth not because they earn more income.\n\nJeff Bezos paid a billion dollars in taxes. He is worth 200 billion so for the protection of the US government and the ability to use its roads for his business and trust he won’t be robbed he is paying %0.5 of the assets that are being safeguarded. I have half a million dollars and paid 40k in taxes. I’m paying %8 for the same services as him.\n\nI pay Fidelity based on a percentage of assets under management why shouldn’t I pay the government for assets under protection.\n\nI pay car insurance based on the value of my car not based on the maintenance I do every year.\n\nThe total net worth of America is around 150 trillion dollars. Total tax revenue for the federal government and state governments is around 7 trillion. If the only thing taxed was wealth the tax rate would be a bit less than %5. The tax would be flat and fair. There would be no income tax no property tax (the value of property is included in your wealth but only the equity) there would be no corporate tax (since the shareholders would be paying based on the value of shares). The bottom %50 of the country would still pay no taxes.",
"date": "2024-03-15",
"id": "kv0vrx2",
"parent_id": "1bfactx",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": "Right now we pay direct taxes on income, property and wealth and indirect taxes on sales and imports.\n\nPersonally I believe things should only be taxed once. This why property and wealth taxes are wrong because you are taxing same money multiple times. Same goes to sales taxes especially when different goods are taxed differently. Now depending on your lifestyle and choices your total tax burden might be different.\n\nBut if we consider wealth creation it is done only by one single mechanism. Work is beginning of all wealth and no wealth can be created without some sort of work. This is birth of money and IMHO only point where it should be divided for redistribution. Also I believe that all income should be treated equally and taxed on same progressive scale no matter if it's labor or capital gain.\n\nThe most common way large corporations avoid paying taxes is either going to region with a low corporate tax rate or buying IP licensing (that they owe themselves) from a shell company where there are no taxes. But if only income is taxed someone must be doing work somewhere and that work will be taxed. Companies can't avoid paying taxes by this scheme at all.\n\nTo maintain same tax income and tax burden, actual income tax needs to be risen appropriately.",
"date": "2024-03-15",
"id": "1bfactx",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Only income should be taxed",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bfactx/cmv_only_income_should_be_taxed/"
},
{
"author": "Jimithyashford",
"body": "So do you mean this as a postion ideological principles or a position of functional reality? \n\n\nThere are lots and lots of things that I can say I feel as a matter of pure contextless ideological adherence, but which I acknowledge just can't/don't work in reality. So that is my first question. Cause for my money, sacrificing functional stability on the altar of ideology is generally a terrible idea and almost always backfires.\n\nSo, that's first. Secondly, do you count income as only the immediate and direct wage tied directly to labor, or income as being any and all means by which wealth may increase? Cause there are wildly different implications there. \n\nAnd lastly, do you mean income should be the only tax in the sense of what we currently pay in income tax should be all there is, or in the sense that all taxation should be realigned so that it only happens on income, so our income taxes would go up substantially but all other taxation would cease? \n\n\nAll of these need an answer before anyone can really intelligently respond to your point.",
"date": "2024-03-15",
"id": "kv19ihk",
"parent_id": "1bfactx",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": "Right now we pay direct taxes on income, property and wealth and indirect taxes on sales and imports.\n\nPersonally I believe things should only be taxed once. This why property and wealth taxes are wrong because you are taxing same money multiple times. Same goes to sales taxes especially when different goods are taxed differently. Now depending on your lifestyle and choices your total tax burden might be different.\n\nBut if we consider wealth creation it is done only by one single mechanism. Work is beginning of all wealth and no wealth can be created without some sort of work. This is birth of money and IMHO only point where it should be divided for redistribution. Also I believe that all income should be treated equally and taxed on same progressive scale no matter if it's labor or capital gain.\n\nThe most common way large corporations avoid paying taxes is either going to region with a low corporate tax rate or buying IP licensing (that they owe themselves) from a shell company where there are no taxes. But if only income is taxed someone must be doing work somewhere and that work will be taxed. Companies can't avoid paying taxes by this scheme at all.\n\nTo maintain same tax income and tax burden, actual income tax needs to be risen appropriately.",
"date": "2024-03-15",
"id": "1bfactx",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Only income should be taxed",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bfactx/cmv_only_income_should_be_taxed/"
},
{
"author": "Sangay__Tenzin",
"body": "While your proposal of taxing only income appears straightforward and eliminates certain complexities, it overlooks several key factors:\n\n1. **Wealth Accumulation Beyond Income**: Wealth can accrue through means other than direct income, such as inheritance, investments, or asset appreciation. Taxing only income could ignore these sources of wealth, potentially exacerbating wealth inequality.\n\n2. **Distribution of Tax Burden**: Different types of taxes distribute the tax burden differently among individuals and entities. Relying solely on income taxation might disproportionately affect certain groups, particularly those who rely on assets or property for their livelihood.\n\n3. **Economic Efficiency and Behavior**: Tax policies influence economic behavior. Taxing income might discourage savings, investment, and entrepreneurial activities, which are vital for economic growth. Property and wealth taxes can help ensure that individuals contribute based on their overall wealth, not just their annual income.\n\n4. **Revenue Stability**: Income taxation is susceptible to economic fluctuations. During economic downturns, income tax revenues may decline, leading to budgetary shortfalls. Diversifying tax sources, such as property and wealth taxes, can provide more stable revenue streams over time.\n\n5. **International Tax Competition**: Globalization enables corporations to shift profits to low-tax jurisdictions. While taxing only income might mitigate some forms of tax avoidance, it could also intensify international tax competition and encourage companies to relocate their operations to jurisdictions with more favorable tax policies.\n\nIncorporating a mix of income, property, and wealth taxes allows governments to achieve a balance between revenue generation, fairness, economic efficiency, and stability. Adjustments to the tax system should consider these factors comprehensively to ensure a fair and effective taxation framework.",
"date": "2024-03-15",
"id": "kv1jz9q",
"parent_id": "1bfactx",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": "Right now we pay direct taxes on income, property and wealth and indirect taxes on sales and imports.\n\nPersonally I believe things should only be taxed once. This why property and wealth taxes are wrong because you are taxing same money multiple times. Same goes to sales taxes especially when different goods are taxed differently. Now depending on your lifestyle and choices your total tax burden might be different.\n\nBut if we consider wealth creation it is done only by one single mechanism. Work is beginning of all wealth and no wealth can be created without some sort of work. This is birth of money and IMHO only point where it should be divided for redistribution. Also I believe that all income should be treated equally and taxed on same progressive scale no matter if it's labor or capital gain.\n\nThe most common way large corporations avoid paying taxes is either going to region with a low corporate tax rate or buying IP licensing (that they owe themselves) from a shell company where there are no taxes. But if only income is taxed someone must be doing work somewhere and that work will be taxed. Companies can't avoid paying taxes by this scheme at all.\n\nTo maintain same tax income and tax burden, actual income tax needs to be risen appropriately.",
"date": "2024-03-15",
"id": "1bfactx",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Only income should be taxed",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bfactx/cmv_only_income_should_be_taxed/"
},
{
"author": "DavidMeridian",
"body": "I think that this would result in insufficient tax revenue - even if income tax rates were higher. It would also shift the tax burden to wage-earners rather than those who derive most of their income from capital gains & dividends.",
"date": "2024-03-15",
"id": "kv2jlrr",
"parent_id": "1bfactx",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": "Right now we pay direct taxes on income, property and wealth and indirect taxes on sales and imports.\n\nPersonally I believe things should only be taxed once. This why property and wealth taxes are wrong because you are taxing same money multiple times. Same goes to sales taxes especially when different goods are taxed differently. Now depending on your lifestyle and choices your total tax burden might be different.\n\nBut if we consider wealth creation it is done only by one single mechanism. Work is beginning of all wealth and no wealth can be created without some sort of work. This is birth of money and IMHO only point where it should be divided for redistribution. Also I believe that all income should be treated equally and taxed on same progressive scale no matter if it's labor or capital gain.\n\nThe most common way large corporations avoid paying taxes is either going to region with a low corporate tax rate or buying IP licensing (that they owe themselves) from a shell company where there are no taxes. But if only income is taxed someone must be doing work somewhere and that work will be taxed. Companies can't avoid paying taxes by this scheme at all.\n\nTo maintain same tax income and tax burden, actual income tax needs to be risen appropriately.",
"date": "2024-03-15",
"id": "1bfactx",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Only income should be taxed",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bfactx/cmv_only_income_should_be_taxed/"
},
{
"author": "markroth69",
"body": ">But if we consider wealth creation it is done only by one single mechanism. Work is beginning of all wealth and no wealth can be created without some sort of work. \n\nThen why shouldn't we tax the wealth held by people who live off of others' work?",
"date": "2024-03-16",
"id": "kv3rjc5",
"parent_id": "1bfactx",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": "Right now we pay direct taxes on income, property and wealth and indirect taxes on sales and imports.\n\nPersonally I believe things should only be taxed once. This why property and wealth taxes are wrong because you are taxing same money multiple times. Same goes to sales taxes especially when different goods are taxed differently. Now depending on your lifestyle and choices your total tax burden might be different.\n\nBut if we consider wealth creation it is done only by one single mechanism. Work is beginning of all wealth and no wealth can be created without some sort of work. This is birth of money and IMHO only point where it should be divided for redistribution. Also I believe that all income should be treated equally and taxed on same progressive scale no matter if it's labor or capital gain.\n\nThe most common way large corporations avoid paying taxes is either going to region with a low corporate tax rate or buying IP licensing (that they owe themselves) from a shell company where there are no taxes. But if only income is taxed someone must be doing work somewhere and that work will be taxed. Companies can't avoid paying taxes by this scheme at all.\n\nTo maintain same tax income and tax burden, actual income tax needs to be risen appropriately.",
"date": "2024-03-15",
"id": "1bfactx",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Only income should be taxed",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bfactx/cmv_only_income_should_be_taxed/"
},
{
"author": "RRW359",
"body": "I think a progressive income tax should be and from what I understand is the main source of revenue but if an expence is directly related to use there should be taxes used as an offset. For example if you drive a vehicle and your vehicle damages the roads there needs to be a way for only drivers to pay for that to put less of a burden on non-drivers; which is where we get fuel tax.\n\n\nOf the examples you listed I'm not totally sold on wealth tax, but if you own expensive property and aren't renting it out then not only does it mean you are likely to be able to afford higher taxes but people who could be renting have to be on social programs that cost the government money.\n\n\nAs for moving overseas, flat income taxes can get regressive if high enough which is why progressive income taxes exist. Unfortunately that's where the problem of moving comes in; I live in Portland, Oregon and have known too many people who don't have a problem with taxes when they don't make a lot of money but move to Vancouver, Washington as soon as they do. I'm not saying their tax structure is better then ours but we need to have some useage-based taxes to provide a more stable income then pure income tax.",
"date": "2024-03-17",
"id": "kvaiozu",
"parent_id": "1bfactx",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": "Right now we pay direct taxes on income, property and wealth and indirect taxes on sales and imports.\n\nPersonally I believe things should only be taxed once. This why property and wealth taxes are wrong because you are taxing same money multiple times. Same goes to sales taxes especially when different goods are taxed differently. Now depending on your lifestyle and choices your total tax burden might be different.\n\nBut if we consider wealth creation it is done only by one single mechanism. Work is beginning of all wealth and no wealth can be created without some sort of work. This is birth of money and IMHO only point where it should be divided for redistribution. Also I believe that all income should be treated equally and taxed on same progressive scale no matter if it's labor or capital gain.\n\nThe most common way large corporations avoid paying taxes is either going to region with a low corporate tax rate or buying IP licensing (that they owe themselves) from a shell company where there are no taxes. But if only income is taxed someone must be doing work somewhere and that work will be taxed. Companies can't avoid paying taxes by this scheme at all.\n\nTo maintain same tax income and tax burden, actual income tax needs to be risen appropriately.",
"date": "2024-03-15",
"id": "1bfactx",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Only income should be taxed",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bfactx/cmv_only_income_should_be_taxed/"
},
{
"author": "OyVaavoy",
"body": "The problem is that taxing everything is the only way to tax anything. Otherwise, creating tax loopholes would be very easy. For example, instead of paying me a salary, my boss would buy a small pebble from me every month and give me my salary tax-free.",
"date": "2024-03-17",
"id": "kvavth5",
"parent_id": "1bfactx",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
]
]
| challenge |
[
{
"author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
"body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "1bjg2bj",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/"
},
{
"author": "darwin2500",
"body": "You sort of have a semantic problem here.\n\n*By definition*, a transitional form is something that only exists briefly in between two stable forms. The fact that they are not visible in large numbers in nature is part of the definition.\n\nI think the evolutionary concept you're missing here is [punctuated equilibrium.](https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/punctuated-equilibrium). Evolution is not slow with entire species having functionless mutations that are halfway to being something useful for a long time. Evolution is sudden changes between different stable equilibriums, where a mutation that randomly unlocks some new advantage spreads and develops rapidly until reaching a new stable point where further mutations don't offer much more advantage and the population stabilizes.\n\nI think you're also confused about what types of evolutionary changes happen. Changes in big things like the number of limbs happen like once in a hundred million or a billion years. \n\nVertebrates developed the basic structure for four limbs [around 400 million years ago](https://www.nature.com/articles/41710), and every vertebrate you see today has that same four-limbed structure... [even snakes have legs!](https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/darwin/evolution-today/how-do-we-know-living-things-are-related/vestigial-organs).\n\nThe types of evolution you can expect to see happening around you are smaller things like slight changes in coloration or changes in limb *length* or changes in beak shape or changes in digestive enzymes or etc. And we *do* see tons of variation in those traits, both among individuals and between species, such that it could be that many of those variations are in the process of shifting to a new equilibrium.\n\nBut you would not *expect* to look at the world and see some species where ever member has a functionless fifth half-leg, on the way to becoming a species with 5 functional legs. That's not actually how evolution works.",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "kvqyucb",
"parent_id": "1bjg2bj",
"score": 60,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
"body": "As you've mentioned, evolution doesn't just happen overnight, it happens over millions of years. But for a transitional form to even exist long enough to pass down those beneficial mutations, it has to be relatively stable in the sense that it has to exist probably for thousands if not millions of years. \n\nThe \"sudden changes\" that you're talking about between different equilibriums are likely still on the scale of tens of thousands of years. On a microevolutionary scale, they also still have to be sufficiently beneficial/benign in order to survive for that long. Considering the vast numbers of species on this Earth, should we not at least be able to see some of those \"sudden changes\" in the process of happening? \n\nI guess I'm expecting something a little more like an extra limb flipping out of a random wild horse somewhere, which might not be realistic considering how rare it is that limbs and eyes developed. I would give a !delta for pointing out the rarity of additional appendages and other similarly big features throughout evolutionary history though!",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "kvrccup",
"parent_id": "kvqyucb",
"score": -4,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "DeltaBot",
"body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/darwin2500 ([187∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/darwin2500)).\n\n^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "kvrch2d",
"parent_id": "kvrccup",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
]
| [
[
{
"author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
"body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "1bjg2bj",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/"
},
{
"author": "Watercanexplosion",
"body": "You're saying evolution isn't real?",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "kvqte2z",
"parent_id": "1bjg2bj",
"score": 4,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
"body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "1bjg2bj",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/"
},
{
"author": "DesideriumScientiae",
"body": "It's a bit more complicated than that, and it's not like everything fossilized, so they could have existed, but usually, only the changes that have direct positives cause the speciation, not benign stuff as much, I think that's how it works at least.",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "kvqu5z9",
"parent_id": "1bjg2bj",
"score": 4,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "MysticInept",
"body": "They didn't say fossils. They are saying the animals they see alive today do not look like they are in a transitional state.",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "kvquicj",
"parent_id": "kvqu5z9",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
"body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "1bjg2bj",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/"
},
{
"author": "Pastadseven",
"body": "Every single extant and previous form is a ‘transitional form.’",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "kvqub9i",
"parent_id": "1bjg2bj",
"score": 16,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
"body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "1bjg2bj",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/"
},
{
"author": "Biptoslipdi",
"body": "What do you think a whale's fins are? Look at their bone structure to see what appears as a large hand bone.",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "kvqubgm",
"parent_id": "1bjg2bj",
"score": 10,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "MysticInept",
"body": "If I understand the OP argument, they would argue that is a complete fin. But there should be some animal in transition now that has incomplete fins.",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "kvquqna",
"parent_id": "kvqubgm",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
"body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "1bjg2bj",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/"
},
{
"author": "Tricky-Elderberry142",
"body": "Seals look pretty damn transitional to me.",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "kvquyfi",
"parent_id": "1bjg2bj",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
"body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "1bjg2bj",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/"
},
{
"author": "Josvan135",
"body": ">If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process\n\n\nWe do.\n\n\nLiterally every creature alive today is a \"transitional form\" as compared to ancestors and (potential, assuming they don't go extinct) descendants.\n\n\nI'm curious, when you were posting this, what was your idea of a \"transitional form\"?",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "kvqv5rg",
"parent_id": "1bjg2bj",
"score": 40,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Quartia",
"body": "Likely, something like Tiktaalik or Ambulocetus that's halfway between two ways of living, since they specifically mentioned \"features and appendages\".\n\n \nExcept humans are that. We're in transition between being quadrupedal tailed animals, and being fully adapted to being bipedal and tailless.",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "kvqwo0a",
"parent_id": "kvqv5rg",
"score": 16,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
"body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "1bjg2bj",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/"
},
{
"author": "Adequate_Images",
"body": "This is just a misunderstanding that of what a transitional form is. \n\nEverything is a transitional form from an evolutionary perspective. \n\nThe changes are very small and take a verrrrrry long time. \n\nhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_evolution",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "kvqvffa",
"parent_id": "1bjg2bj",
"score": 29,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "MysticInept",
"body": "Do you understand why that won't be very convincing to the OP?",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "kvqzk4g",
"parent_id": "kvqvffa",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
"body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "1bjg2bj",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/"
},
{
"author": "parentheticalobject",
"body": "There are transitional forms.\n\nTake a look at the evolution of the [eye](https://www.britannica.com/science/photoreception/Evolution-of-eyes).\n\nEvery intermediate stage is covered, and the diagram lists examples of mollusk species at one stage. A few outer cells have photoreceptors. Then the patch of photoreceptors curves inward, granting some slight ability to tell where light is coming from. Then skin begins to fold over, leading to the development of something like a pinhole camera. Then a simple lens evolves over the cavity, and then plenty of small improvements can lead to complex eyes like those of humans or octopuses. Each of those steps is partway through the process of developing an eye, and each proto-eye works better than the last step.\n\nOf course, there's a logical problem when asking for \"transitional forms\" - it's a question that can be repeated infinitely. If you want to look for a transitional form between organism 1 and organism 2, maybe you'll find organism 1.5 which is halfway between them. But then you can just ask the question again - where's the transitional form between 1 and 1.5, and where's the transitional form between 1.5 and 2? And if you find those, you can ask for four more transitional forms. It goes on forever, so it's unfalsifiable.",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "kvqvfyj",
"parent_id": "1bjg2bj",
"score": 15,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "ihatepasswords1234",
"body": "I think your last paragraph is the real problem. No matter how many transitional forms you find you could always be asked to find more.",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "kvr9fjw",
"parent_id": "kvqvfyj",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
"body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "1bjg2bj",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/"
},
{
"author": "jatjqtjat",
"body": ">animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.\n\nthere are two ways you could imagine this going.\n\n1. First way is that a part of an organism that used to be functional has stopped serving any purpose. (your losing something)\n\n2. The second way is that an organism would benefits from a new feature and that feature has started development but that development not yet finished. (your gaining something)\n\nthe first does happen, and we see it all over the place. they are called vestigial structures. vestigial structures in humans include\n\n* goose bumps when you are scared or cold. Hair frolics standing on end make you look larger to predictors and help keep you more insulated when cold. Humans don't have hair but still get goose bumps.\n* tail bones\n\nOften we debate if a feature is really vestigial or not, but you can just google and find hundred of examples. They are common.\n\nthe second way, does not happen because evolution has no foresight. a mutation must have immediate benefit in order to be preserved. A wild animal doesn't have a better chance of surviving and passing on its genes because it has a mutation that could later mutate again into something more beneficial. \n\nadding new appendages is indeed exceedingly rare. no birds, mammals, reptiles, or amphibians. all animals in these kingdoms have 4 or fewer appendages.",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "kvqvjq1",
"parent_id": "1bjg2bj",
"score": 38,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "sik_dik",
"body": ">For a new feature to evolve each mutation in the process must increase fitness\n\nthis is not necessarily true. any mutation that has no net loss nothing can also survive. \n\nthere's also sexual selection at play in features that serve no purpose for individual survival (but still works for genetic reproduction). peacocks are a great example of a natural feature actually being a hindrance toward survival of the individual. it's costly of resources, slows the bird from escaping predators, and serves no purpose other than attracting a partner. the giant plumage propagates only because of sexual selection. it's effectively an unchecked feedback loop. you could argue it's useful in the sense of attracting a mate. but why peahens even care about it in the first place is purely arbitrary",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "kvr78lp",
"parent_id": "kvqvjq1",
"score": 9,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
"body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "1bjg2bj",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/"
},
{
"author": "TheSunMakesMeHot",
"body": "What do you mean? There are plenty of animals that have vestigial parts. What kind of creature would you expect to see that isn't extant? ",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "kvqvmmz",
"parent_id": "1bjg2bj",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
"body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "1bjg2bj",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/"
},
{
"author": "junction182736",
"body": "> If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism.\n\nWhy would the \"features and appendages\" not have to be functional? One thing to consider is functional features are advantageous in a certain environment giving rise to a proliferation of those \"features and appendages\", and if that environment changes they may not be advantageous anymore and perhaps deleterious. So you're not likely to see non-functional \"features and appendages\" hanging around for very long in any environment.\n\nSecondly, we don't know everything, and what seems \"non-functional\" from observation may indeed be functional on some level. \n\nhttps://theconversation.com/walking-fish-help-scientists-to-understand-how-we-left-the-ocean-91411",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "kvqvs95",
"parent_id": "1bjg2bj",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
"body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "1bjg2bj",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/"
},
{
"author": "Irhien",
"body": "It's not absent, you just can't recognize it. Who says flying squirrels aren't on their way to develop full flight like that of the bats? Maybe it won't happen, sure, but this is how it always goes: evolution can only use what already exists to develop it further, and things don't exist for meaningful periods of time without being functional.",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "kvqvvm6",
"parent_id": "1bjg2bj",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
"body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "1bjg2bj",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/"
},
{
"author": "DeadCupcakes23",
"body": "We've just seen yellow emperor penguins for the first time who will either die out or have some advantage and spread. So you have a transitional form right there.",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "kvqvy2b",
"parent_id": "1bjg2bj",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
"body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "1bjg2bj",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/"
},
{
"author": "ZappSmithBrannigan",
"body": "Tiktalik was the perfect example of transitional form AND novel prediction. \n\nIt's the transition between aquatic and land animals. Fish with fingers. And it was predicted to be in a specific strata, and when we went to look, there it was",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "kvqvydd",
"parent_id": "1bjg2bj",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
"body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "1bjg2bj",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/"
},
{
"author": "Nrdman",
"body": "You have vestigial structures. In your body. https://www.britannica.com/list/7-vestigial-features-of-the-human-body",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "kvqw6x9",
"parent_id": "1bjg2bj",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
"body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "1bjg2bj",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/"
},
{
"author": "The_White_Ram",
"body": "Vestigial traits are the other end of what you are talking about and evidence that is contrary to your position. Vestigial traits are literally the definition of a transitional form as the appendage/organ is no longer needed yet still remains.\n\n*\"Vestigiality is the retention, during the process of evolution, of genetically determined structures or attributes that have lost some or all of the ancestral function in a given species.\\[1\\] Assessment of the vestigiality must generally rely on comparison with homologous features in related species. The emergence of vestigiality occurs by normal evolutionary processes, typically by loss of function of a feature that is no longer subject to positive selection pressures when it loses its value in a changing environment. The feature may be selected against more urgently when its function becomes definitively harmful, but if the lack of the feature provides no advantage, and its presence provides no disadvantage, the feature may not be phased out by natural selection and persist across species.*\r \n\r \n*Examples of vestigial structures (also called degenerate, atrophied, or rudimentary organs) are the loss of functional wings in island-dwelling birds; the human vomeronasal organ; and the hindlimbs of the snake and whale.\"*\n\n[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigiality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigiality)",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "kvqwblo",
"parent_id": "1bjg2bj",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "MysticInept",
"body": "What is the word for that in the opposite direction? Something added that is new?",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "kvqxo3t",
"parent_id": "kvqwblo",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
"body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "1bjg2bj",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/"
},
{
"author": "utah_teapot",
"body": "One small counter-argument: most animals do not have extra limbs. Most animals follow the pattern of four limbs, with five fingers each. Even horses have “fingers” inside their hooves. Actually gaining limbs is something that happens extremely rare, especially in animals that have skeletons.\n\nFor transitional animals, donkeys and horses are sort of that thing. They are different species, sort of, in that two members of the two groups can have a baby together, but that baby, while capable of living, is usually not fertile and can’t have babies. So horses and donkeys are somewhere between same species and different species.\n\nFor “difference in features”, let’s compare tigers and lions. Lions have manes, tigers don’t. I would call that a “feature”. Tigers and lions are in the same situation like donkeys and horses. If we saw them 1 million years in the future, and they were no longer capable of siring offsprings together , would that be a good argument for macro-evolution in your eyes?",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "kvqwif4",
"parent_id": "1bjg2bj",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
"body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "1bjg2bj",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/"
},
{
"author": "frisbeescientist",
"body": "> features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism\n\nPlenty of organisms have these features, there's even a name for them: vestigial structures. For example, whales have vestigial pelvic bones that are useless but used to be hips for the hind legs that their evolutionary ancestors did have. Even humans have some, like the coccyx at the bottom of our spine that is all that remains of a tail. Look up vestigial structures and see how many examples exist; this should readily disprove your hypothesis.",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "kvqwswu",
"parent_id": "1bjg2bj",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
"body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "1bjg2bj",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/"
},
{
"author": "Bruhahah",
"body": "They're all transitional. For example, when England was burning heavy coal, the peppered moths were almost all black because the white birch trees were darkened with soot, white ones got eaten, so progeny were more likely to be black. Then coal burning rates slowed, trees turned white again, and then the black moths had a harder time with camouflage so the white ones lived to reproduce more and the species started trending white again. Same 'transitional form' reacting to environmental selective factors. Everything is in adaptation to its environment if the stressors are severe enough. If you want a good example for some 'tweener' forms that are still successful, there's axolotls and mudfish with hybrid lungs and gills, there's snakes with vestigial legs left over internally, etc.",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "kvqxbe1",
"parent_id": "1bjg2bj",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
"body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "1bjg2bj",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/"
},
{
"author": "eloel-",
"body": "Everything that does not have a carapace and pincers is a transitional form. So there's no lack of transitional forms right now, most species are transitional forms.",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "kvqxhlm",
"parent_id": "1bjg2bj",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
"body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "1bjg2bj",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/"
},
{
"author": "Alesus2-0",
"body": "All forms are transitional. Contemporary species just seem 'complete' to you, because they match what you expect to see. You construct a narrative of what they're 'meant' to be and do. If you actually look for it, nature today is full of examples of anatomy that doesn't make much sense or could obviously be better.\n\nThere's no good reason for deep cavedwelling creatures to have eyes, so it might make sense if they didn't have them. But there's no practical reason for an animal to have eyes that don't work. So why would a species have non-working eyes?\n\nThere are species of slithering lizards (not snakes) with vestigial legs. It's obvious why legs would be handy. It seems plausible that if an animal can slither like a snake, it might not need legs. But why would a species of animal have a set of tiny, useless legs?",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "kvqy0xv",
"parent_id": "1bjg2bj",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
"body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "1bjg2bj",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/"
},
{
"author": "nauticalsandwich",
"body": "Seals? Whales? Penguins? Mudskippers? These are some of the most visually obvious ones, but literally everything is in a transitional state. Heck... WE have this thing called an appendix (that we don't really need) and sometimes just randomly \"decides\" to rupture and kill us. Some of us can grow facial hair, and some of us cannot.\n\nWe have \"transitional\" fossils in the fossil record.\n\nT-Rex's arms???\n\nThe problem here is that you are envisioning a kind of evolutionary transition that is different and less gradual than the actual processes and timescales of the evolutionary process.\n\nA whale's blowhole didn't just start developing as a blowhole. It was a nostril that moved further and further back over millions of years.",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "kvqy720",
"parent_id": "1bjg2bj",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
"body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "1bjg2bj",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/"
},
{
"author": "Zodiac1919",
"body": "Humans have a tailbone but no tail, Whales have vestigial legs from when they walked on land, flightless birds have vestigial wings, etc. There's plenty of examples in the world that animals are transitioning. In fact, every animal could and should be considered \"transitional\", there is no ultimate final evolution, at least not one we've ever seen. The theory of natural selection simply states that those whose genetics are best suited for their environment are passed on generationally. \n\nA great example of this is the Peppered Moth, a moth that used to be predominantly white, which transitioned to predominantly black after the Industrial Revolution affected its habitat.",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "kvqych9",
"parent_id": "1bjg2bj",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
"body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "1bjg2bj",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/"
},
{
"author": "ptn_huil0",
"body": "For your last sentence - there are lots of lizards out there that behave like snakes but have tiny useless limbs, so transitional species are everywhere. Some even claim that appendix in humans is a useless organ which will eventually disappear. Also, you need to read up about increasing number of people getting an extra artery in their arms (extra blood and nutrition for our hands and fingers will refine our micro movements, which is very helpful for technology) - if that’s not evolution at work, then I don’t know what is.",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "kvqyimg",
"parent_id": "1bjg2bj",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
"body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "1bjg2bj",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/"
},
{
"author": "Jimithyashford",
"body": "You would be correct if there were no transitional forms. We have like.... literally millions of them though. So your premise is completely incorrect.",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "kvqyucd",
"parent_id": "1bjg2bj",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
"body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "1bjg2bj",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/"
},
{
"author": "FetusDrive",
"body": ">If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. \n\nWe have plenty of examples of this. Look at flying squirrels vs bats. The flying squirrel cannot fly; but it can glide. Over millions of years or hundreds of thousands of years, if it is beneficial to glide even further, the ancestors may be much better flyers (or actually flying) than their ancestors who were only able to glide.",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "kvqz30h",
"parent_id": "1bjg2bj",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
"body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "1bjg2bj",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/"
},
{
"author": "obert-wan-kenobert",
"body": "> we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. \n\nIn humans alone:\n\n* Tailbone\n* Wisdom teeth\n* Appendix\n* Ear muscles\n* Sinuses\n* Goosebump response\n* A bunch of other random muscles you've never heard of",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "kvqz68s",
"parent_id": "1bjg2bj",
"score": 10,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "humblevladimirthegr8",
"body": "This should be higher up. The evidence of evolution is indisputably within our own bodies",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "kvsyy0t",
"parent_id": "kvqz68s",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
"body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "1bjg2bj",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/"
},
{
"author": "LucidMetal",
"body": ">we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism\n\nAlex, what is a vestigial organ?",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "kvqzcxx",
"parent_id": "1bjg2bj",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
"body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "1bjg2bj",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/"
},
{
"author": "Watercanexplosion",
"body": "How's it feel being a moron you piece of shit?",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "kvqzwzf",
"parent_id": "1bjg2bj",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Ansuz07",
"body": "u/Watercanexplosion – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: \r\n\r\n> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).\r\n\r\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20Watercanexplosion&message=Watercanexplosion%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\\[their%20comment\\]\\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/-/kvqzwzf/\\)%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "kvr20wg",
"parent_id": "kvqzwzf",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
"body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "1bjg2bj",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/"
},
{
"author": "Cryonaut555",
"body": "This explains it better than any text could:\n\nhttps://youtu.be/UuIwthoLies?t=68",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "kvr0mw5",
"parent_id": "1bjg2bj",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
"body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "1bjg2bj",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/"
},
{
"author": "GenericUsername19892",
"body": "You mean like mudskippers?",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "kvr1lyy",
"parent_id": "1bjg2bj",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
"body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "1bjg2bj",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/"
},
{
"author": "WUT_productions",
"body": "I mean we do see some \"halfway\" forms even in humans. Many humans grow wisdom teeth even if their jaw cannot support it and it causes dental complications. Some humans don't grow wisdom teeth and therefore carry a mutation to not develop wisdom teeth.\n\nOf course, in the developed world we have wisdom teeth extraction so developing wisdom teeth isn't exactly a big contributor to evolutionary pressure to propagate the no wisdom teeth gene.\n\nEvery species is technically in a transitional form. Every one of us has mutations that mostly do nothing. But some are impactful and those get carried on. Humans across the world are getting taller on average and part of that is that people are choosing to procreate with taller people.",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "kvr27cw",
"parent_id": "1bjg2bj",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
"body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "1bjg2bj",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/"
},
{
"author": "Holiman",
"body": "Given that every advanced biological program on earth accepts evolution as real and basic to biological understanding. They use it both to explain and predict with real reproducible results. How can you not just question it, but say it's not good enough to be the accepted answer?",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "kvr2dac",
"parent_id": "1bjg2bj",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
"body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "1bjg2bj",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/"
},
{
"author": "Necessary_Fill_5412",
"body": "The \"Mudskipper\" is a fish that walks on land...is that enough of a \"transitional form\" to you ? :)",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "kvr328j",
"parent_id": "1bjg2bj",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
"body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "1bjg2bj",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/"
},
{
"author": "ralph-j",
"body": "See: [29+ Evidences for Macroevolution](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/)\n\n> *The Scientific Case for Common Descent*\n> \n> *This article directly addresses the scientific evidence in favor of common descent and macroevolution. This article is specifically intended for those who are scientifically minded but, for one reason or another, have come to believe that macroevolutionary theory explains little, makes few or no testable predictions, is unfalsifiable, or has not been scientifically demonstrated.*",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "kvr38dg",
"parent_id": "1bjg2bj",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
"body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "1bjg2bj",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/"
},
{
"author": "depricatedzero",
"body": "African Pigmy Hedgehogs have my favorite evolutionary trait: vestigial hibernation.\n\nBecause they come from Europe, where hedgehogs hibernate. As they entered Africa they lost the need to hibernate, and their behavior and physiology adapted so that they no longer store fat for hibernation.\n\nBut they never actually lost the ability to hibernate, or the trigger. At least, not yet. They're transitioning away from it, still. So if their body temperature drops below 70 degrees (I think) they trigger hibernation - which means they get sick and die.\n\nI mean it's fucking horrible for them and if you keep one as a pet you absolutely have to make sure they're in a warm environment to prevent that from happening. But there is an example of a creature with some dire consequences to being mid-transition in shedding unnecessary evolutionary traits.",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "kvr3wa4",
"parent_id": "1bjg2bj",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
"body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "1bjg2bj",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/"
},
{
"author": "FerdinandTheGiant",
"body": "It’s rare for me to see a post that is related to my field (evo. biologist) so hopefully I can help out. \n\nFor starters, the difference between macro evolution and micro evolution are the same thing, the only difference is the scale and the line is drawn at speciation. We have undoubtedly observed speciation so we have undoubtably observed macroevolution. \n\nWhen it comes to transitional fossils, we have many. Transitional [turtles](https://i.natgeofe.com/n/d1327821-96c5-4e94-a24e-8007e2f202e7/Cowabunga_2x3.jpg), transitional [birds](https://www.thoughtco.com/thmb/jPAC99xp_kFB_uxfiKulnnbKQ5g=/1500x0/filters:no_upscale():max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/2048px-Archaeopteryx_fossil-5c5b17f246e0fb0001849b0e.jpg), etc. etc. and we can see many transitional traits in extant species.",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "kvr4u1v",
"parent_id": "1bjg2bj",
"score": 10,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
"body": "Just curious as to whether there are examples of speciation within the span of human history alone?\n\nAs far as speciation goes, I'm aware of how speciation occurs. Maybe macroevolution might have been the wrong term, but I was thinking about the development of complex structures like eyes or limbs that might not otherwise provide an evolutionary advantage until fully formed in some way, and I would expect that the intermediate stages between when the structure is a random mutation versus being an evolutionary advantage would take a fair bit of time, and I would think that given the vast number of species that this intermediate would be observable at some point.",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "kvrdnv8",
"parent_id": "kvr4u1v",
"score": -4,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
"body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "1bjg2bj",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/"
},
{
"author": "CaptainMalForever",
"body": "Vestigial appendages completely exist. In humans, we have a tailbone, even though we are apes and thus do not have tails. Snakes have hip bones, though they have long since developed to have no legs. Many more examples exist like this. \n\n\nThis is all based upon the idea that evolution is a straight line. That humans were once monkeys and there is a creature between me and a chimpanzee. However, instead, evolution is much better understood if it is branches. Each evolutionary form is not a replacement, necessarily, of the previous form, but a [branch](https://evolution.berkeley.edu/what-are-evograms/the-emergence-of-humans/).",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "kvr7rnd",
"parent_id": "1bjg2bj",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
"body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "1bjg2bj",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/"
},
{
"author": "ConstantAmazement",
"body": "Darwin himself mentions the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. He was hopeful that further discoveries would be found to substantiate his theory and even stated that it would be fatal to his theory if they were not. \n\nPrepare yourself! This observation always causes lots of hate from the Darwinian evolution crowd as they double-down on Darwin because they feel that if they are honest and acknowledge the problem, they get fearful that it will be used against them by believers as proof of God. \n\nWe really only want them to come up with a better scientific theory, but it's impossible to talk them down from the ledge.",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "kvr9vh2",
"parent_id": "1bjg2bj",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "I_am_the_night",
"body": ">Darwin himself mentions the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.\n\nDarwin died 150 years ago. We've made a lot of discoveries since then, including a ton of transitional fossils.\n\n>He was hopeful that further discoveries would be found to substantiate his theory\n\nThey did\n\n>Prepare yourself!\n\nConsider me prepped\n\n>This observation always causes lots of hate from the Darwinian evolution crowd as they double-down on Darwin \n\nThere's no \"doubling down\", it's that you are *only wrong*. Transitional fossils exist, we literally have tons of them. Archaeopteryx, Australopithecus afarensis, Pakicetids, Tiltaalik, Amphistium, and Runcaria are just some of the most famous examples.\n\n>because they feel that if they are honest and acknowledge the problem, they get fearful that it will be used against them by believers as proof of God. \n\nNo it's because you're stating false information. Transitional fossils exist, and there's plenty of room for God there too unless you subscribe to a fundamentalist young Earth creationist view.\n\n>We really only want them to come up with a better scientific theory, but it's impossible to talk them down from the ledge.\n\n*But you are wrong about what you said here*. You can literally go look up pictures of transitional fossils. [There's an entire Wikipedia article about them](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil?wprov=sfla1).",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "kvrsbv3",
"parent_id": "kvr9vh2",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
"body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "1bjg2bj",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/"
},
{
"author": "CBL44",
"body": "\nAside: I assume you are Christian from your question. I suggest you read 'The Language of God' by Francis Collins. It has a great explanations of evolution and Collins's reasons for believing in god.\n\nTo answer your question directly, there are tons of transistional forms in the fossil record. Search for evolution of whales/horses/birds/humans\n\nHere are some for whales:\n\nhttps://evolution.berkeley.edu/what-are-evograms/the-evolution-of-whales/\n\nOr would you prefer horses (look at the evolution of their feet and toes)\nhttps://www.britannica.com/animal/horse/Evolution-of-the-horse\n\nOr birds:\nhttps://evolution.berkeley.edu/what-are-evograms/the-origin-of-birds/",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "kvrbil0",
"parent_id": "1bjg2bj",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
"body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "1bjg2bj",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/"
},
{
"author": "Loose_Hornet4126",
"body": "I’d like to direct you to Richard Dawes selfish gene. Not that you wasted your time. I want you to tell us why it’s important. Forget about contributing and helping your friends.",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "kvrdg57",
"parent_id": "1bjg2bj",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
"body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "1bjg2bj",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/"
},
{
"author": "Fit-Order-9468",
"body": "We can see transitional forms all the time with selective breeding. This at least supports the underlying mechanicism for evolution. It just so happen fitness is what prospers in a human environment.",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "kvrgldy",
"parent_id": "1bjg2bj",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
"body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "1bjg2bj",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/"
},
{
"author": "Light_of_Avalon",
"body": "Just gonna drop this: https://youtu.be/OuqFUdqNYhg?si=A_3GesbyXs1o5wC-",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "kvrkkh5",
"parent_id": "1bjg2bj",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
"body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "1bjg2bj",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/"
},
{
"author": "MagicGuava12",
"body": "Breed 3 generations of flies and get back to me. The research is beyond proven.",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "kvrmzzb",
"parent_id": "1bjg2bj",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
"body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "1bjg2bj",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/"
},
{
"author": "c0l245",
"body": "You ARE a transitional form. Everything is a transitional form. All life is constantly transitioning. \n\n10,000 years from now when humans have no appendix and our documents have been obliterated by the AI wars, people will argue that the appendix never existed.",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "kvrn4rf",
"parent_id": "1bjg2bj",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
"body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "1bjg2bj",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/"
},
{
"author": "GoldH2O",
"body": "You have a mistake in your reasoning here. And that's that ALL organisms are \"transitional forms\". There's no end goal to Evolution, so there's always potential for an organism to become better adapted to the environment it lives in. Transitional traits are not absent from living creatures. Every single feature of every single organism is transitional.",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "kvrpphv",
"parent_id": "1bjg2bj",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
"body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "1bjg2bj",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/"
},
{
"author": "Wooden-Ad-3382",
"body": "almost kinda zeno's dichotomy paradox here",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "kvrqdqe",
"parent_id": "1bjg2bj",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
"body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "1bjg2bj",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/"
},
{
"author": "FXST20Bobber",
"body": "Transitional forms, like glass lizards? Or like Boids having vestigial pelvic bones and vestigial femurs that have shrunk into external \"spurs\"? \n\nHow about Echidnas and Platypus's? They're prehistoric egg laying mammals.",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "kvsgdiv",
"parent_id": "1bjg2bj",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
"body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "1bjg2bj",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/"
},
{
"author": "xFblthpx",
"body": "Evolution isn’t supposed to explain why different species *exist.* It’s supposed to explain why organisms have *different traits,* which precedes the definition of a species. The world is full of transitional forms today, as every organism is unique, but the way we arbitrarily classify organisms is too broad to capture how all species are in the process of transitioning in one way or another. Hell, the average skin color of humans changes every year as a result of growing interconnectedness, and different areas of the world experiencing different stages of demographic transitioning (mortality and birth rates changing). That’s an observable difference in traits related to humans that we are seeing rapidly change as a result of reproductive selection. Is that a transitional form? Most transitions happen too slowly to be recognizable but that doesn’t mean they aren’t existent. The ability to reproduce with another species is just another arbitrary way we categorize animals, and that trait comes from evolutionary circumstances, but that doesn’t mean *all evolutionary changes in traits* leads to changes in reproduction. Crocodiles and alligators seem more similar than Labradors and chihuahuas, yet crocodiles and alligators are separate species whereas “dog” is one species. Hopefully I’ve made my argument that all species are in a transitional form in some way or another and we simply don’t observe it because of our arbitrary and broad mechanisms of classification.",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "kvsr553",
"parent_id": "1bjg2bj",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
"body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
"date": "2024-03-20",
"id": "1bjg2bj",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/"
},
{
"author": "WovenHandcrafts",
"body": "The Panda is a great transitional species. They recently evolved from a terrestrial species to a climbing species, and from an onmivorous one to a herbivorous one. As a result, they've developed a sort of 6th digit on their front paws, originating as a wrist bone. This isn't as good as a real opposable thumb would be, but evolution works with the changes that show up. Their gut is also in a transitional state. Since plants take more work to digest, their intestines aren't quite up to the task, being part-way between an omnivore's gut and a herbivores.",
"date": "2024-03-21",
"id": "kvvubjd",
"parent_id": "1bjg2bj",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
]
]
| challenge |
[
{
"author": "Odd_Profession_2902",
"body": "So often do I hear people say they don’t care what others say/think but so little do I see the proof of this self-proclamation. Everywhere I go, someone is upset over being disrespected. \n\nWe care a *lot* about what others say/think about us. Way more than we dare to admit. We are essentially dependent on it. Everytime someone disagrees with us, every time we’re called fat, every time someone doesn’t acknowledge our gender identity, every time someone makes assumptions based on our ethnicity. These things almost always offends us. And our solution is always to demand them to apologize and respect us. \n\nWe can’t control how others perceive and/or speak to us- but we absolutely have control over whether we care about enough to allow ourselves to be affected by it. The person who is the most responsible for being offended is us. It is our fault for caring so much about how they view/talk to us. If the other person doesn’t respect us then that’s their choice. You can’t force them to respect us. If we are prone to feeling offended by it, we are the main one who needs fixing.\n\nThe youth needs to be coached better on how to simply not care about what others think. I think ultimately this is more important than forcing us to respect others.",
"date": "2024-03-27",
"id": "1bp0jqu",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: We are not entitled to verbal respect",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bp0jqu/cmv_we_are_not_entitled_to_verbal_respect/"
},
{
"author": "adminhotep",
"body": "You may be right when it comes to private insult, but when someone publicly disrespects you and you just let them, it affects how others think about you. \n\nPublic disrespect is an attack on your reputation, which is why it’s mostly socially discouraged. It causes conflict where if the society at large doesn’t do it, the recipient needs to protect their reputation against the attacker and can result in actual hostilities - especially in honor based societies. \n\nIt’s really much easier for society to badger the shitheads who are too dense to understand that social interaction should encourage social cohesion than it is to encourage them to offend each other and maybe get shot like the idiots they are, leaving the socially acceptable to clean up the mess left by the hothead and the idiot too dense to know better than to intentionally offend them out of their own stupid principle. We’re smarter than that and don’t want to let you lot make more work for us…\n\nAnd that’s about where the mods should ban my comment. Partially because of the difficulty to enforce social norms online without actual spelled out rules that kind of behavior is almost universally prohibited in forums for online discussion, and for good reason. Imagine if that was the standard for interaction among people who have different views on things yet needed to cooperate and communicate. Not only would it force a lot more people to control their temper, but it would destroy productive interaction in the process, and the ability to interact productively is kind of the point. ",
"date": "2024-03-27",
"id": "kwt1yv9",
"parent_id": "1bp0jqu",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Odd_Profession_2902",
"body": "Yeah maybe something can be said about public insults.\n\nA private insult is fine. But if they can rally a bunch of stupid but dangerous people to hate me then that could cause quite a precarious situation.\n\n!delta",
"date": "2024-03-27",
"id": "kwt5mcb",
"parent_id": "kwt1yv9",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "DeltaBot",
"body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/adminhotep ([11∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/adminhotep)).\n\n^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
"date": "2024-03-27",
"id": "kwt5ur8",
"parent_id": "kwt5mcb",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
]
| [
[
{
"author": "Odd_Profession_2902",
"body": "So often do I hear people say they don’t care what others say/think but so little do I see the proof of this self-proclamation. Everywhere I go, someone is upset over being disrespected. \n\nWe care a *lot* about what others say/think about us. Way more than we dare to admit. We are essentially dependent on it. Everytime someone disagrees with us, every time we’re called fat, every time someone doesn’t acknowledge our gender identity, every time someone makes assumptions based on our ethnicity. These things almost always offends us. And our solution is always to demand them to apologize and respect us. \n\nWe can’t control how others perceive and/or speak to us- but we absolutely have control over whether we care about enough to allow ourselves to be affected by it. The person who is the most responsible for being offended is us. It is our fault for caring so much about how they view/talk to us. If the other person doesn’t respect us then that’s their choice. You can’t force them to respect us. If we are prone to feeling offended by it, we are the main one who needs fixing.\n\nThe youth needs to be coached better on how to simply not care about what others think. I think ultimately this is more important than forcing us to respect others.",
"date": "2024-03-27",
"id": "1bp0jqu",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: We are not entitled to verbal respect",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bp0jqu/cmv_we_are_not_entitled_to_verbal_respect/"
},
{
"author": "Dyeeguy",
"body": "No one is entitled to anything, which makes the whole argument seem pointless. Entitlement is not a force of nature",
"date": "2024-03-27",
"id": "kwsdn3i",
"parent_id": "1bp0jqu",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Odd_Profession_2902",
"body": "I believe we are entitled to basic human rights.",
"date": "2024-03-27",
"id": "kwsdsjy",
"parent_id": "kwsdn3i",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Odd_Profession_2902",
"body": "So often do I hear people say they don’t care what others say/think but so little do I see the proof of this self-proclamation. Everywhere I go, someone is upset over being disrespected. \n\nWe care a *lot* about what others say/think about us. Way more than we dare to admit. We are essentially dependent on it. Everytime someone disagrees with us, every time we’re called fat, every time someone doesn’t acknowledge our gender identity, every time someone makes assumptions based on our ethnicity. These things almost always offends us. And our solution is always to demand them to apologize and respect us. \n\nWe can’t control how others perceive and/or speak to us- but we absolutely have control over whether we care about enough to allow ourselves to be affected by it. The person who is the most responsible for being offended is us. It is our fault for caring so much about how they view/talk to us. If the other person doesn’t respect us then that’s their choice. You can’t force them to respect us. If we are prone to feeling offended by it, we are the main one who needs fixing.\n\nThe youth needs to be coached better on how to simply not care about what others think. I think ultimately this is more important than forcing us to respect others.",
"date": "2024-03-27",
"id": "1bp0jqu",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: We are not entitled to verbal respect",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bp0jqu/cmv_we_are_not_entitled_to_verbal_respect/"
},
{
"author": "Nrdman",
"body": "I think it’s morally good to have a base level of respect for everyone. Do you disagree?",
"date": "2024-03-27",
"id": "kwse0z0",
"parent_id": "1bp0jqu",
"score": 17,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Odd_Profession_2902",
"body": "I disagree that it’s necessarily morally good to have a base level of verbal respect for everyone.",
"date": "2024-03-27",
"id": "kwsfaq8",
"parent_id": "kwse0z0",
"score": -6,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Odd_Profession_2902",
"body": "So often do I hear people say they don’t care what others say/think but so little do I see the proof of this self-proclamation. Everywhere I go, someone is upset over being disrespected. \n\nWe care a *lot* about what others say/think about us. Way more than we dare to admit. We are essentially dependent on it. Everytime someone disagrees with us, every time we’re called fat, every time someone doesn’t acknowledge our gender identity, every time someone makes assumptions based on our ethnicity. These things almost always offends us. And our solution is always to demand them to apologize and respect us. \n\nWe can’t control how others perceive and/or speak to us- but we absolutely have control over whether we care about enough to allow ourselves to be affected by it. The person who is the most responsible for being offended is us. It is our fault for caring so much about how they view/talk to us. If the other person doesn’t respect us then that’s their choice. You can’t force them to respect us. If we are prone to feeling offended by it, we are the main one who needs fixing.\n\nThe youth needs to be coached better on how to simply not care about what others think. I think ultimately this is more important than forcing us to respect others.",
"date": "2024-03-27",
"id": "1bp0jqu",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: We are not entitled to verbal respect",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bp0jqu/cmv_we_are_not_entitled_to_verbal_respect/"
},
{
"author": "shadysack",
"body": "We aren’t entitled to anything at all.\n\nBut you’re generalizing wildly, describing things “we” care about and what offends “us” no matter how hard we try. Many of the things you’ve described don’t apply to me in the slightest. For reference, I’m pretty sure I’m on the antisocial/psychopathy scale, but so is between 1% and 10% of the adult population and 30% of the American prison population. So it’s a minority but not a tiny one, and not an insignificant one. \n\nAll that aside, I think “not entitled to respect” and “the youth needs to be coached to not care what others think” are different statements. \n\nIt’s still really important what others think even if them liking you is just a means to an end, and you see no intrinsic value in it - you don’t even have to see other people as people. What is important in my mind is making sure you’re not valuing the opinions and thoughts of other people higher than *your own* - and, done properly, this is something that can be done in introductory philosophy. I took two of these classes in college but it could certainly be done in high school or even earlier. Problem is that formal philosophy is more or less indistinguishable from formal mathematics and logic, and many of the people teaching high school students and younger are absolute dogwaffle at the latter.",
"date": "2024-03-27",
"id": "kwsec9g",
"parent_id": "1bp0jqu",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Odd_Profession_2902",
"body": "I believe we are entitled to basic human rights.\n\nWould you feel offended if i said my post was referring to normal people who aren’t psychopaths or mentally ill?",
"date": "2024-03-27",
"id": "kwsgib8",
"parent_id": "kwsec9g",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Odd_Profession_2902",
"body": "So often do I hear people say they don’t care what others say/think but so little do I see the proof of this self-proclamation. Everywhere I go, someone is upset over being disrespected. \n\nWe care a *lot* about what others say/think about us. Way more than we dare to admit. We are essentially dependent on it. Everytime someone disagrees with us, every time we’re called fat, every time someone doesn’t acknowledge our gender identity, every time someone makes assumptions based on our ethnicity. These things almost always offends us. And our solution is always to demand them to apologize and respect us. \n\nWe can’t control how others perceive and/or speak to us- but we absolutely have control over whether we care about enough to allow ourselves to be affected by it. The person who is the most responsible for being offended is us. It is our fault for caring so much about how they view/talk to us. If the other person doesn’t respect us then that’s their choice. You can’t force them to respect us. If we are prone to feeling offended by it, we are the main one who needs fixing.\n\nThe youth needs to be coached better on how to simply not care about what others think. I think ultimately this is more important than forcing us to respect others.",
"date": "2024-03-27",
"id": "1bp0jqu",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: We are not entitled to verbal respect",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bp0jqu/cmv_we_are_not_entitled_to_verbal_respect/"
},
{
"author": "Rainbwned",
"body": ">So often do I hear people say they don’t care what others say/think but so little do I see the proof of this self-proclamation. Everywhere I go, someone is upset over being disrespected. \n\nPeople usually won't make posts about how something doesn't bother them. So if someone says something mean to a person, if it doesn't bother them then that is the end of it. \n\nIs there any meaningful distinction between verbal respect, and just respect?",
"date": "2024-03-27",
"id": "kwsetw8",
"parent_id": "1bp0jqu",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Odd_Profession_2902",
"body": "Could you elaborate on how your first point is opposition to my view?\n\nI wanted to filter out the type of disrespect of spitting on someone’s face or discretely video record them to post on social media.",
"date": "2024-03-27",
"id": "kwsh9oe",
"parent_id": "kwsetw8",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Odd_Profession_2902",
"body": "So often do I hear people say they don’t care what others say/think but so little do I see the proof of this self-proclamation. Everywhere I go, someone is upset over being disrespected. \n\nWe care a *lot* about what others say/think about us. Way more than we dare to admit. We are essentially dependent on it. Everytime someone disagrees with us, every time we’re called fat, every time someone doesn’t acknowledge our gender identity, every time someone makes assumptions based on our ethnicity. These things almost always offends us. And our solution is always to demand them to apologize and respect us. \n\nWe can’t control how others perceive and/or speak to us- but we absolutely have control over whether we care about enough to allow ourselves to be affected by it. The person who is the most responsible for being offended is us. It is our fault for caring so much about how they view/talk to us. If the other person doesn’t respect us then that’s their choice. You can’t force them to respect us. If we are prone to feeling offended by it, we are the main one who needs fixing.\n\nThe youth needs to be coached better on how to simply not care about what others think. I think ultimately this is more important than forcing us to respect others.",
"date": "2024-03-27",
"id": "1bp0jqu",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: We are not entitled to verbal respect",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bp0jqu/cmv_we_are_not_entitled_to_verbal_respect/"
},
{
"author": "LucidMetal",
"body": "It actually doesn't matter whether you believe people are or aren't entitled to verbal respect. What matters is that the overwhelmingly vast majority of people in your society do!\n\nIf you don't verbally respect others you will be punished socially potentially to the point of ostracisation is severe enough.",
"date": "2024-03-27",
"id": "kwshbn7",
"parent_id": "1bp0jqu",
"score": 6,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Odd_Profession_2902",
"body": "I’m just saying that they shouldn’t be.\n\nIf my view is an unpopular one, my mind won’t be changed simply due to an appeal to majority.",
"date": "2024-03-27",
"id": "kwsillq",
"parent_id": "kwshbn7",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Odd_Profession_2902",
"body": "So often do I hear people say they don’t care what others say/think but so little do I see the proof of this self-proclamation. Everywhere I go, someone is upset over being disrespected. \n\nWe care a *lot* about what others say/think about us. Way more than we dare to admit. We are essentially dependent on it. Everytime someone disagrees with us, every time we’re called fat, every time someone doesn’t acknowledge our gender identity, every time someone makes assumptions based on our ethnicity. These things almost always offends us. And our solution is always to demand them to apologize and respect us. \n\nWe can’t control how others perceive and/or speak to us- but we absolutely have control over whether we care about enough to allow ourselves to be affected by it. The person who is the most responsible for being offended is us. It is our fault for caring so much about how they view/talk to us. If the other person doesn’t respect us then that’s their choice. You can’t force them to respect us. If we are prone to feeling offended by it, we are the main one who needs fixing.\n\nThe youth needs to be coached better on how to simply not care about what others think. I think ultimately this is more important than forcing us to respect others.",
"date": "2024-03-27",
"id": "1bp0jqu",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: We are not entitled to verbal respect",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bp0jqu/cmv_we_are_not_entitled_to_verbal_respect/"
},
{
"author": "ProDavid_",
"body": ">We care a lot about what others say/think about us. Way more than we dare to admit. We are essentially dependent on it.\n\n>but we absolutely have control over whether we care about enough to allow ourselves to be affected by it.\n\nbut... if we, individually, have control over it, why are you making a blanket statement about \"WE care a lot...\"? youre just contradicting your own point.",
"date": "2024-03-27",
"id": "kwsiahc",
"parent_id": "1bp0jqu",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Odd_Profession_2902",
"body": "Because while we have the capacity to control how we feel, we often forget that and don’t train our mind to its full potential. Sometimes we need a reminder that we can.",
"date": "2024-03-27",
"id": "kwslhhb",
"parent_id": "kwsiahc",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Odd_Profession_2902",
"body": "So often do I hear people say they don’t care what others say/think but so little do I see the proof of this self-proclamation. Everywhere I go, someone is upset over being disrespected. \n\nWe care a *lot* about what others say/think about us. Way more than we dare to admit. We are essentially dependent on it. Everytime someone disagrees with us, every time we’re called fat, every time someone doesn’t acknowledge our gender identity, every time someone makes assumptions based on our ethnicity. These things almost always offends us. And our solution is always to demand them to apologize and respect us. \n\nWe can’t control how others perceive and/or speak to us- but we absolutely have control over whether we care about enough to allow ourselves to be affected by it. The person who is the most responsible for being offended is us. It is our fault for caring so much about how they view/talk to us. If the other person doesn’t respect us then that’s their choice. You can’t force them to respect us. If we are prone to feeling offended by it, we are the main one who needs fixing.\n\nThe youth needs to be coached better on how to simply not care about what others think. I think ultimately this is more important than forcing us to respect others.",
"date": "2024-03-27",
"id": "1bp0jqu",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: We are not entitled to verbal respect",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bp0jqu/cmv_we_are_not_entitled_to_verbal_respect/"
},
{
"author": "Skrungus69",
"body": "Actually i think its more important to teach people not to be assholes but mabye thats just me.",
"date": "2024-03-27",
"id": "kwski6s",
"parent_id": "1bp0jqu",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Odd_Profession_2902",
"body": "Asshole behavior is subjective to opinion.\n\nBeing able to control what affects you is a more surefire solution to feeling hurt.",
"date": "2024-03-27",
"id": "kwsmpon",
"parent_id": "kwski6s",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Odd_Profession_2902",
"body": "So often do I hear people say they don’t care what others say/think but so little do I see the proof of this self-proclamation. Everywhere I go, someone is upset over being disrespected. \n\nWe care a *lot* about what others say/think about us. Way more than we dare to admit. We are essentially dependent on it. Everytime someone disagrees with us, every time we’re called fat, every time someone doesn’t acknowledge our gender identity, every time someone makes assumptions based on our ethnicity. These things almost always offends us. And our solution is always to demand them to apologize and respect us. \n\nWe can’t control how others perceive and/or speak to us- but we absolutely have control over whether we care about enough to allow ourselves to be affected by it. The person who is the most responsible for being offended is us. It is our fault for caring so much about how they view/talk to us. If the other person doesn’t respect us then that’s their choice. You can’t force them to respect us. If we are prone to feeling offended by it, we are the main one who needs fixing.\n\nThe youth needs to be coached better on how to simply not care about what others think. I think ultimately this is more important than forcing us to respect others.",
"date": "2024-03-27",
"id": "1bp0jqu",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: We are not entitled to verbal respect",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bp0jqu/cmv_we_are_not_entitled_to_verbal_respect/"
},
{
"author": "sawdeanz",
"body": "You haven't actually given a justification for your side. \n\nIn other words, why should other people be entitled to disrespect others? \n\nWhere do you draw the line? Am I not entitled to keep my property and body safe? Or should I just tolerate being robbed and raped? You may think these are not the same as verbal respect, but I think it is. You haven't given a justification for why you draw the line at verbal respect but not other forms of aggression. It's all part of the same exact concept, just different in it's degrees of harm. But these are all reasonable expectations in a peaceful society, which hopefully you support.\n\nDoes that mean it will never happen? Of course not. Does that mean people should be arrested for speech? Of course not. But does that mean we should tolerate disrespect? No. I think it can and should be rebuked. There is no reason to expect the victims to take unearned disrespect quietly.",
"date": "2024-03-27",
"id": "kwsv2lq",
"parent_id": "1bp0jqu",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Odd_Profession_2902",
"body": "Verbal respect.\n\nPeople shouldn’t be entitled to verbal respect because committing to that would be a cost to freedom. We shouldn’t be forced to respect someone who we don’t like. And we shouldn’t be forced to respect someone we don’t even know.",
"date": "2024-03-27",
"id": "kwsw2eq",
"parent_id": "kwsv2lq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Odd_Profession_2902",
"body": "So often do I hear people say they don’t care what others say/think but so little do I see the proof of this self-proclamation. Everywhere I go, someone is upset over being disrespected. \n\nWe care a *lot* about what others say/think about us. Way more than we dare to admit. We are essentially dependent on it. Everytime someone disagrees with us, every time we’re called fat, every time someone doesn’t acknowledge our gender identity, every time someone makes assumptions based on our ethnicity. These things almost always offends us. And our solution is always to demand them to apologize and respect us. \n\nWe can’t control how others perceive and/or speak to us- but we absolutely have control over whether we care about enough to allow ourselves to be affected by it. The person who is the most responsible for being offended is us. It is our fault for caring so much about how they view/talk to us. If the other person doesn’t respect us then that’s their choice. You can’t force them to respect us. If we are prone to feeling offended by it, we are the main one who needs fixing.\n\nThe youth needs to be coached better on how to simply not care about what others think. I think ultimately this is more important than forcing us to respect others.",
"date": "2024-03-27",
"id": "1bp0jqu",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: We are not entitled to verbal respect",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bp0jqu/cmv_we_are_not_entitled_to_verbal_respect/"
},
{
"author": "Automatic-Sport-6253",
"body": "What \"verbal respect\" even is. If people are entitled to a certain level of respect by default as fellow human beings, why verbal respect is any different? Like, what is even you point, that it is totally okay to swear at someone for no reason? Call people names for no reason? If I can't hit you out of nowhere why should I be able to make you uncomfortable verbally?\n\n>Every time someone disagrees with us, every time we’re called fat, every time someone doesn’t acknowledge our gender identity, every time someone makes assumptions based on our ethnicity.\n\nIf you try to intentionally harm me for no reason I am absolutely justified in being upset at you for doing that. I can correct you, I can ask you to stop doing that, I can try harming you back in response. I can also just not react to it at all, but that doesn't mean I must ignore it just because \"I'm not entitled to verbal respect\".\n\n>These things almost always offends us.\n\nNo. Just no. It's not the words that offend us. It's the intention to harm. If someone misgenders me accidentally but willing to use the right gender once corrected: that's not offensive. If someone assumes stereotypes based on my ethnicity but acknowledges those are wrong after being corrected: that's not offensive. But if you insist on doing something even after you've been told not to do that, that shows hostility and intent to harm. That is what offensive. Why do you think that should be tolerated and considered a norm?",
"date": "2024-03-27",
"id": "kwsxz8u",
"parent_id": "1bp0jqu",
"score": 5,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Odd_Profession_2902",
"body": "Because you can’t avoid physical pain that’s been inflicted. But you can avoid mental pain. And you do that by knowing your own self worth.",
"date": "2024-03-27",
"id": "kwsz3tk",
"parent_id": "kwsxz8u",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Odd_Profession_2902",
"body": "So often do I hear people say they don’t care what others say/think but so little do I see the proof of this self-proclamation. Everywhere I go, someone is upset over being disrespected. \n\nWe care a *lot* about what others say/think about us. Way more than we dare to admit. We are essentially dependent on it. Everytime someone disagrees with us, every time we’re called fat, every time someone doesn’t acknowledge our gender identity, every time someone makes assumptions based on our ethnicity. These things almost always offends us. And our solution is always to demand them to apologize and respect us. \n\nWe can’t control how others perceive and/or speak to us- but we absolutely have control over whether we care about enough to allow ourselves to be affected by it. The person who is the most responsible for being offended is us. It is our fault for caring so much about how they view/talk to us. If the other person doesn’t respect us then that’s their choice. You can’t force them to respect us. If we are prone to feeling offended by it, we are the main one who needs fixing.\n\nThe youth needs to be coached better on how to simply not care about what others think. I think ultimately this is more important than forcing us to respect others.",
"date": "2024-03-27",
"id": "1bp0jqu",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: We are not entitled to verbal respect",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bp0jqu/cmv_we_are_not_entitled_to_verbal_respect/"
},
{
"author": "gogybo",
"body": "Let's talk in concrete examples. A stranger stops me on the street and says \"oi mate, you're a fat fucker aren't ya?\". Am I not allowed to say something back to him? Can't I say \"you'd better fucking apologise mate\"? Would it be a better world if people felt entitled to go round insulting people without fear of consequences?\n\nI'm sitting in a cafe and an old woman asks if she can sit opposite me. She then starts talking about her day and what she's been getting up to. Halfway through I stand up: \"sorry love but you're boring as fuck and I can't be arsed listening to you\". Was that a nice thing to do? Didn't she deserve better than that? All she wanted was a chat - the least I could've done was to be polite whilst leaving.\n\nYour philosophy sounds very Stoic and I can appreciate where you're coming from, but it only works on an individual level. We should still try to develop a harmonious society because none of us are completely free, individual agents. We're shaped by the societies we live in and the relationships we develop. A society without a basic level of shared respect is frankly a sick society which can only produce sick people.",
"date": "2024-03-27",
"id": "kwt0j7j",
"parent_id": "1bp0jqu",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Odd_Profession_2902",
"body": "Yeah someone else previously mentioned verbal threats and I’m on board with taking action against that.\n\nCalling an old lady boring and walking away from the conversation shouldn’t have any legal consequence though. As for social consequences, I suppose disrespect now flows both ways. You’ve verbally disrespected the old lady for no reason and now you don’t get any verbal respect from everyone else. And that’s only possible when you aren’t entitled to verbal respect.",
"date": "2024-03-27",
"id": "kwt33qg",
"parent_id": "kwt0j7j",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Odd_Profession_2902",
"body": "So often do I hear people say they don’t care what others say/think but so little do I see the proof of this self-proclamation. Everywhere I go, someone is upset over being disrespected. \n\nWe care a *lot* about what others say/think about us. Way more than we dare to admit. We are essentially dependent on it. Everytime someone disagrees with us, every time we’re called fat, every time someone doesn’t acknowledge our gender identity, every time someone makes assumptions based on our ethnicity. These things almost always offends us. And our solution is always to demand them to apologize and respect us. \n\nWe can’t control how others perceive and/or speak to us- but we absolutely have control over whether we care about enough to allow ourselves to be affected by it. The person who is the most responsible for being offended is us. It is our fault for caring so much about how they view/talk to us. If the other person doesn’t respect us then that’s their choice. You can’t force them to respect us. If we are prone to feeling offended by it, we are the main one who needs fixing.\n\nThe youth needs to be coached better on how to simply not care about what others think. I think ultimately this is more important than forcing us to respect others.",
"date": "2024-03-27",
"id": "1bp0jqu",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: We are not entitled to verbal respect",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bp0jqu/cmv_we_are_not_entitled_to_verbal_respect/"
},
{
"author": "PeachState1",
"body": "I can't force anyone to respect me, but I can expect in a modern society for people to treat me well and for normal consequences to be applied if they don't.\n\nLet's say my coworker comes up to me and calls me a bitch. In a work context, I am absolutely entitled to a certain level of verbal respect from coworkers. Whether or not I have an emotional response, whether or not I allow myself to be harmed by the word, I'm still entitled to not be called a bitch by my coworker. And I am entitled to go to my boss, explain that my coworker called me a bitch, and have the consequences of that applied to my coworker. Will that change my coworkers mind about my being a bitch? No, and it might even reinforce their perception. Does that mean I should ignore that, and let my coworker insult me and swear at me? Absolutely not. I expect in this situation that I recieve verbal respect from my coworkers, regardless of what they think of me. And I can make sure the normal social consequences of them not respecting me are applied. \n\n\"But!\" You say. \"That's *different.* What about a stranger on the street?\" \n\nA stranger comes up to me and calls me a bitch. Ok. I am still entitled to verbal respect. So I walk away. The person yells at me and tells me to come back, I need to listen to them call me a bitch. I keep walking. Again, I can't control what they think of me. I can't control that they think I'm a bitch. But I'm still entitled to verbal respect. I'm offended, and it hurt me. Thats irrelevant to my deserving respect, and the way I can enforce my deserving respect is to refuse to engage with them.\n\nUltimately, I agree with you that I can't change anyone's mind on what they think of me. And ultimately, if someone is an asshole to me I can't control their behavior. But I think that's separate from the fact that I also deserve a reasonable level of respect from others in society. And I'm entitled to apply normal social consequences in order to not be continuously disrespected, whether that be reporting the verbal abuse to a manager, refusing to interact with someone who clearly doesn't respect me, etc.",
"date": "2024-03-27",
"id": "kwtt2nw",
"parent_id": "1bp0jqu",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Odd_Profession_2902",
"body": "Why should you be entitled to what people say to you? So long as it’s not a verbal threat, they should be able to speak their mind. If they say you’ve gotten too fat and should lose weight then that’s just how they feel. If they don’t identify you as a guy, then that’s just how they feel. So long as they’re not threatening to hurt us, why are we so concerned about what others say?",
"date": "2024-03-27",
"id": "kwvgv6r",
"parent_id": "kwtt2nw",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Odd_Profession_2902",
"body": "So often do I hear people say they don’t care what others say/think but so little do I see the proof of this self-proclamation. Everywhere I go, someone is upset over being disrespected. \n\nWe care a *lot* about what others say/think about us. Way more than we dare to admit. We are essentially dependent on it. Everytime someone disagrees with us, every time we’re called fat, every time someone doesn’t acknowledge our gender identity, every time someone makes assumptions based on our ethnicity. These things almost always offends us. And our solution is always to demand them to apologize and respect us. \n\nWe can’t control how others perceive and/or speak to us- but we absolutely have control over whether we care about enough to allow ourselves to be affected by it. The person who is the most responsible for being offended is us. It is our fault for caring so much about how they view/talk to us. If the other person doesn’t respect us then that’s their choice. You can’t force them to respect us. If we are prone to feeling offended by it, we are the main one who needs fixing.\n\nThe youth needs to be coached better on how to simply not care about what others think. I think ultimately this is more important than forcing us to respect others.",
"date": "2024-03-27",
"id": "1bp0jqu",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: We are not entitled to verbal respect",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bp0jqu/cmv_we_are_not_entitled_to_verbal_respect/"
},
{
"author": "BeginningPangolin826",
"body": "“Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.”\n\nConan the Barbarian",
"date": "2024-03-27",
"id": "kwtu201",
"parent_id": "1bp0jqu",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Odd_Profession_2902",
"body": "So often do I hear people say they don’t care what others say/think but so little do I see the proof of this self-proclamation. Everywhere I go, someone is upset over being disrespected. \n\nWe care a *lot* about what others say/think about us. Way more than we dare to admit. We are essentially dependent on it. Everytime someone disagrees with us, every time we’re called fat, every time someone doesn’t acknowledge our gender identity, every time someone makes assumptions based on our ethnicity. These things almost always offends us. And our solution is always to demand them to apologize and respect us. \n\nWe can’t control how others perceive and/or speak to us- but we absolutely have control over whether we care about enough to allow ourselves to be affected by it. The person who is the most responsible for being offended is us. It is our fault for caring so much about how they view/talk to us. If the other person doesn’t respect us then that’s their choice. You can’t force them to respect us. If we are prone to feeling offended by it, we are the main one who needs fixing.\n\nThe youth needs to be coached better on how to simply not care about what others think. I think ultimately this is more important than forcing us to respect others.",
"date": "2024-03-27",
"id": "1bp0jqu",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: We are not entitled to verbal respect",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bp0jqu/cmv_we_are_not_entitled_to_verbal_respect/"
},
{
"author": "MagnanimosDesolation",
"body": "If we can't control how others respect us then there's no problem, what are you arguing against?",
"date": "2024-03-27",
"id": "kwulvj8",
"parent_id": "1bp0jqu",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Odd_Profession_2902",
"body": "I’m arguing against the common belief of being entitled and demanding respect from others.",
"date": "2024-03-27",
"id": "kwval7a",
"parent_id": "kwulvj8",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Odd_Profession_2902",
"body": "So often do I hear people say they don’t care what others say/think but so little do I see the proof of this self-proclamation. Everywhere I go, someone is upset over being disrespected. \n\nWe care a *lot* about what others say/think about us. Way more than we dare to admit. We are essentially dependent on it. Everytime someone disagrees with us, every time we’re called fat, every time someone doesn’t acknowledge our gender identity, every time someone makes assumptions based on our ethnicity. These things almost always offends us. And our solution is always to demand them to apologize and respect us. \n\nWe can’t control how others perceive and/or speak to us- but we absolutely have control over whether we care about enough to allow ourselves to be affected by it. The person who is the most responsible for being offended is us. It is our fault for caring so much about how they view/talk to us. If the other person doesn’t respect us then that’s their choice. You can’t force them to respect us. If we are prone to feeling offended by it, we are the main one who needs fixing.\n\nThe youth needs to be coached better on how to simply not care about what others think. I think ultimately this is more important than forcing us to respect others.",
"date": "2024-03-27",
"id": "1bp0jqu",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: We are not entitled to verbal respect",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bp0jqu/cmv_we_are_not_entitled_to_verbal_respect/"
},
{
"author": "AmITheOnlyOne__",
"body": "I agree with you because being disingenuous with yourself is the most hurtful thing you can do. I've always been very blunt and stirn with my beliefs I'm not going to be 2faced. \n\nFor example, I love going to music festivals mostly EDM I've been going for about 15 years now. I'm almost 29, The reason why I was so drawn to PLUR was because no matter where you came from, WE ARE ALL WELCOMED. there's been an understanding in the EDM scene that political views don't matter. We are all there for the music. Yes, there are people who view the music and rave community as unholy, which I can understand I've had conversations with people who have opposing views but they were very respectful conversations. We both respect each other's views without having to bend a knee to our beliefs. I've always felt safe having my own semi conversative views at music festivals. My personal view is my own, and I can understand why people think the way they do if they have different beliefs. we all human the most you can do is come to a common ground. Agree to disagree but that's it nothing more nothing less.\n\nSo, I came to reddit and saw your post and found it very relateable because a PC game I play released a Nonbinary character, which became a big issue online. What sucks is people who share my same perspective get flamed or canceled not speaking for those who are intentionally rude but the ones that have an understanding with gender ideology but have their own beliefs that doesnt aline with it. I have a friend that uses pronouns and ive know about her views at a glance and shes heard mine before but this really upset her because i kept calling the new character by she because thats what i believe she looks like. I dont care if the gaming company made the character thats fine they have every right to do what they want. I simply said i will not call the character by pronouns because thats just not what i believe in. Best i can do is is say the character name. I spoke with a friend that had similar views the point she made was it was out of respect to call the character pronouns. What about out of respect for me? or people that dont want to want to engage in using pronouns but are feeling forced too?Theres no representation of my views on streaming platforms because you canceled and called a bigot for simply saying hey \"thats not my thing but that is yours and that is great for you\". You can't force someone to call you what you believe at that moment in time you are. I would much rather much call someone by their name. Im all for people having representation but it seems that it only swing one way. \n\nGoing back to the EDM community obviously the gaming community is very different from it. I just wish there was an understanding of both view points were people would just say I respect your views, but they are not for me & both parties can move on. \n\n\nSide notes: I've know the friend group for 2 years now. We kept our friendship and found a common ground.",
"date": "2024-03-27",
"id": "kwvisem",
"parent_id": "1bp0jqu",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Odd_Profession_2902",
"body": "We need to be less dependent on what others say and think about us.\n\nIt shouldn’t matter to them if you don’t view them the same way they view themselves. Them not respecting your right to freedom is worse than whatever you may think of them. Why are they such a slave to your opinion? It’s a really a parasitic way of living.",
"date": "2024-03-27",
"id": "kwvlox6",
"parent_id": "kwvisem",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Odd_Profession_2902",
"body": "So often do I hear people say they don’t care what others say/think but so little do I see the proof of this self-proclamation. Everywhere I go, someone is upset over being disrespected. \n\nWe care a *lot* about what others say/think about us. Way more than we dare to admit. We are essentially dependent on it. Everytime someone disagrees with us, every time we’re called fat, every time someone doesn’t acknowledge our gender identity, every time someone makes assumptions based on our ethnicity. These things almost always offends us. And our solution is always to demand them to apologize and respect us. \n\nWe can’t control how others perceive and/or speak to us- but we absolutely have control over whether we care about enough to allow ourselves to be affected by it. The person who is the most responsible for being offended is us. It is our fault for caring so much about how they view/talk to us. If the other person doesn’t respect us then that’s their choice. You can’t force them to respect us. If we are prone to feeling offended by it, we are the main one who needs fixing.\n\nThe youth needs to be coached better on how to simply not care about what others think. I think ultimately this is more important than forcing us to respect others.",
"date": "2024-03-27",
"id": "1bp0jqu",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: We are not entitled to verbal respect",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bp0jqu/cmv_we_are_not_entitled_to_verbal_respect/"
},
{
"author": "poprostumort",
"body": ">We can’t control how others perceive and/or speak to us\n\nWe can do like with any other thing - by making their actions have consequences. And that is the basis on what verbal respect is - it is a line that a society (or part of it) draws and applies consequences - for laws they will be legal consequences, for social norms they will be social consequences.\n\nWe can't control what someone think, because you thinking whatever is your own personal freedom. If you stop thinking that and start to voice it, you are no longer only thinking and start to interact with others - which means that you start to have issues where freedom of one person is encroaching into freedom of other person. At this moment you absolutely do need to draw a line as it is impossible for both freedoms to be unlimited.\n\n>If the other person doesn’t respect us then that’s their choice.\n\nAnd our reaction to it is a choice. Freedom goes both ways.\n\n>If we are prone to feeling offended by it, we are the main one who needs fixing.\n\nNo, there isn't anything to fix. If someone is expressing a disrespectful view of you, you will not like that and treat that someone differently from someone who doesn't. If that view is expressed publicly, public will judge whether they agree with you or not and react accordingly - by voluntary associating or disassociating with you.\n\nWhat you want is for people to be forced to conform to your own standards, no matter what they think.",
"date": "2024-03-28",
"id": "kwybpuu",
"parent_id": "1bp0jqu",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Odd_Profession_2902",
"body": "Barring extreme cases like verbal threats, there’s no freedom encroaching for simply saying something to someone.\n\nBut there is clear freedom encroaching for limiting what we can say just because there’s a chance someone’s feelings might get hurt when they hear it.\n\nGiven that the solution is to simply not care some random person says to you, I think the law should lean towards supporting the side of saying whatever we want. It also trains people to have thicker skin and higher self-esteem.",
"date": "2024-03-28",
"id": "kwyd5f1",
"parent_id": "kwybpuu",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Odd_Profession_2902",
"body": "So often do I hear people say they don’t care what others say/think but so little do I see the proof of this self-proclamation. Everywhere I go, someone is upset over being disrespected. \n\nWe care a *lot* about what others say/think about us. Way more than we dare to admit. We are essentially dependent on it. Everytime someone disagrees with us, every time we’re called fat, every time someone doesn’t acknowledge our gender identity, every time someone makes assumptions based on our ethnicity. These things almost always offends us. And our solution is always to demand them to apologize and respect us. \n\nWe can’t control how others perceive and/or speak to us- but we absolutely have control over whether we care about enough to allow ourselves to be affected by it. The person who is the most responsible for being offended is us. It is our fault for caring so much about how they view/talk to us. If the other person doesn’t respect us then that’s their choice. You can’t force them to respect us. If we are prone to feeling offended by it, we are the main one who needs fixing.\n\nThe youth needs to be coached better on how to simply not care about what others think. I think ultimately this is more important than forcing us to respect others.",
"date": "2024-03-27",
"id": "1bp0jqu",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: We are not entitled to verbal respect",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bp0jqu/cmv_we_are_not_entitled_to_verbal_respect/"
},
{
"author": "UnrealRhubarb",
"body": ">The person who is the most responsible for being offended is us. It is our fault for caring so much about how they view/talk to us. If the other person doesn’t respect us then that’s their choice. You can’t force them to respect us. If we are prone to feeling offended by it, we are the main one who needs fixing.\n\nSo rather than creating a society that expects people to care for each other and punishes those who cause harm, you want people to simply stop caring? Do you genuinely believe this is practical, achievable, or even healthy? There will always be people who are offended and there will always be people who want to offend. Saying that we should just learn to not care doesn't solve the issue because people who want to offend will find new ways to do so. Your view suggests that we should just let people with malicious intent continue being jerks. It also suggests that anyone who is offended is sensitive and should get over it. You're trying to eliminate the impact without addressing the cause.\n\n>Every time someone disagrees with us, every time we’re called fat, every time someone doesn’t acknowledge our gender identity, every time someone makes assumptions based on our ethnicity. These things almost always offends us.\n\nBeing offended can also serve a social purpose. People who disrespect others by calling them slurs, insulting them, stereotyping them, etc. often disrespect people in more tangible ways too. A boss may limit your career options by assigning you unimportant tasks or by passing over you for promotion. A doctor may be unwilling to diagnose you or prescribe you something you need for unrelated, biased reasons. A stranger may lie about you and damage your reputation. When someone verbally disrespects you, this is just an obvious expression of whatever negative feelings they have for you. Socially punishing those people helps us prevent other forms of harm. \n\nPersonal example incoming - I'm physically disabled and have used canes and crutches throughout my life. Sometimes people kick my mobility aids while I'm walking. I'm not offended when people do it on accident. Even when this causes me physical harm, I'm not offended because I understand it was accidental. However, I am offended when people do it on purpose. It can be hard to tell if people are doing it on purpose or not, because some people don't even notice they've done it (if it's a small kick and I don't fall, people often walk by without even realizing it happened). I can tell when someone does it on purpose by their attitude and past experiences with them. If someone calls me an ableist slur or is verbally disrespectful of me because of my disability, I can reasonably assume they meant to kick my aid or that they don't feel regret for it. When someone calls me a slur, I can report them to HR or someone else in a position of power. By reporting the name-calling, I can make it easier to prove malicious intent in physical situations. If I never reported someone calling me a slur and then they kicked my cane, it would likely be dismissed as an accident and no consequences would come about. Punishing verbal disrespect has a social function in this situation.",
"date": "2024-03-28",
"id": "kwzgec2",
"parent_id": "1bp0jqu",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Odd_Profession_2902",
"body": "So often do I hear people say they don’t care what others say/think but so little do I see the proof of this self-proclamation. Everywhere I go, someone is upset over being disrespected. \n\nWe care a *lot* about what others say/think about us. Way more than we dare to admit. We are essentially dependent on it. Everytime someone disagrees with us, every time we’re called fat, every time someone doesn’t acknowledge our gender identity, every time someone makes assumptions based on our ethnicity. These things almost always offends us. And our solution is always to demand them to apologize and respect us. \n\nWe can’t control how others perceive and/or speak to us- but we absolutely have control over whether we care about enough to allow ourselves to be affected by it. The person who is the most responsible for being offended is us. It is our fault for caring so much about how they view/talk to us. If the other person doesn’t respect us then that’s their choice. You can’t force them to respect us. If we are prone to feeling offended by it, we are the main one who needs fixing.\n\nThe youth needs to be coached better on how to simply not care about what others think. I think ultimately this is more important than forcing us to respect others.",
"date": "2024-03-27",
"id": "1bp0jqu",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: We are not entitled to verbal respect",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bp0jqu/cmv_we_are_not_entitled_to_verbal_respect/"
},
{
"author": "CartographerKey4618",
"body": "Absolutely not. The opposite is true. There is nothing wrong with being sensitive. On the contrary hese people tend to be way more empathetic. I want more people who care about other people in this world, including what they think. The people who should be made to feel bad and unwelcomed in society are the assholes who can't control what they say out of their mouths. Why should I have to put up with that? What value is the asshole adding to society that everyone else has to ensure such unpleasantness in public to accommodate them?",
"date": "2024-04-01",
"id": "kxkocsx",
"parent_id": "1bp0jqu",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Odd_Profession_2902",
"body": "1. Respect should be earned\n\n2. Don’t be a slave to others’ words\n\n3. It’s better to be tough minded than weak minded",
"date": "2024-04-01",
"id": "kxkxxum",
"parent_id": "kxkocsx",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
]
]
| moderate |
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "c0i9z",
"body": "[https://medium.com/the-knowledge-of-freedom/80-percent-of-women-dont-initiate-divorces-it-s-a-lot-more-complex-than-that-96425b3184ca](https://medium.com/the-knowledge-of-freedom/80-percent-of-women-dont-initiate-divorces-it-s-a-lot-more-complex-than-that-96425b3184ca)\n\nIt's 69% in the US, 60% in the UK. Not 80%.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzefcfo",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 621,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Thank you. !delta doesn't fully change my view but it does seem to balance things out more",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzefnxp",
"parent_id": "kzefcfo",
"score": 233,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "DeltaBot",
"body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/c0i9z ([6∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/c0i9z)).\n\n^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzefr5v",
"parent_id": "kzefnxp",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
]
| [
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Most-Pop-8963",
"body": "This trend only started after at fault divorce was replaced with no fault divorce in the USA. This shows that there is not sufficient reason such as cheating for divorce leading to the majority of modern divorces. Just simple disagreements.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzeewnj",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 19,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "I mean what are the stats on the reasons why people divorce? Do you have evidence? And if it really is simple disagreements how can we say women are at fault.\n\nIf a woman says she doesn't tolerate x and a man doesn't change is it his fault or hers? I'd argue it's neither. \n\nThis post isn't meant to say men are bad but to counter the ideas women are has",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzef8rs",
"parent_id": "kzeewnj",
"score": 12,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "FaerieStories",
"body": ">So I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening.\n\nI just Googled this and there are a number of articles that would probably give you a better-informed response than most users here could off the top of their head. This one for example:\n\n[https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20220511-why-women-file-for-divorce-more-than-men](https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20220511-why-women-file-for-divorce-more-than-men)\n\n*Women also tend to gain fewer emotional benefits from marriage, which could make single life seem more appealing. While married men experience multiple perks – including living longer and earning more money – women don’t usually benefit from their relationships in the same way. Instead, they bear the brunt of household and child-rearing labour, which can leave working women “overwhelmed and stressed”, says Fort-Martinez.*\n\n*Women also tend to have more close friends than men (in fact, in the US, 15% of men say they have no close friendships at all), meaning they have a better support system both to discuss any marital issues as well as to ease the transition back into single life. It’s also possible these friendships make divorce seem like a more plausible option – research suggests that if a close friend gets divorced, people’s own chances of divorcing rise by 75%.*\n\n*Add this to the fact that women get primary custody of children in the vast majority of divorce cases, so women may feel they have less to lose when filing for divorce compared to men. And in some ways, they are right – evidence shows men’s wellbeing tends to* [*drop much more dramatically*](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5992251/) *immediately following a divorce.*\n\n*But in reality, this effect can be short-lived. “In the short-term after divorce, men’s overall wellbeing decreases more, and they report higher levels of loneliness,” says Kar. “But over time that evens out, and women continue to suffer from more chronic, long-term effects including the loss of home ownership, reduced financial means, and increased stress from life as a single parent.”*",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzeey89",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 306,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "How does that show that women are the cause of the failing relationship?",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzefh9v",
"parent_id": "kzeey89",
"score": 10,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "CostanzaCrimeFamily",
"body": "All it means is that women have more inclination to initiate divorce and give up because they know (with society’s backing) that they have tons of options waiting for them. Or at least that’s what they think. Many women in their 40s for instance get a sobering dose of reality when they are newly single and they aren’t as desired as they were 10 years ago.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzefk0y",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": -4,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Znyper",
"body": "Sorry, u/CostanzaCrimeFamily – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\r\n\r\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). \r\n\r\nIf you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20CostanzaCrimeFamily&message=CostanzaCrimeFamily%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\\[their%20comment\\]\\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/-/kzefk0y/\\)%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. \r\n\r\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzfqbze",
"parent_id": "kzefk0y",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "parkway_parkway",
"body": "I agree that knowing who initiated doesn't tell you who caused the breakdown, which is often due to both parties to a degree. \n\nHowever it's interesting to look at male-male marriages Vs female-female marriages for clues on how different genders behave. \n\n\"[A 2022 study](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_of_same-sex_couples) of Norway, using data up to 2018, found that divorce rates 20 years post-marriage were 5% lower for male-male marriages compared to male-female marriages and were 29% higher for female-female marriages vs female-male marriages.\"\n\n\"A study of marriage dissolution rates in Sweden spanning the years 1995–2012 found that 30% of both male same-sex marriages and heterosexual marriages ended in divorce, whereas the separation rate for female same-sex marriages was 40%\"\n\nAnd then it's also interesting to look at domestic violence in lesbian relationships. \n\n\"[The CDC](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence_in_same-sex_relationships) also stated that 43.8% of lesbian women reported experiencing physical violence, stalking, or rape by their partners. The study notes that, out of those 43.8%, two thirds (67.4%) reported exclusively female perpetrators.\"\n\nIn general seeing that women initiate 80% of divorces and assuming that's evidence of men being at fault is a good example of the [Women are Wonderful](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women-are-wonderful_effect) fallacy.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzefklk",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 95,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Where did I ever assume men were at fault? This post isn't about that. But rather that women are not majority at fault. Some may be at fault. Others not. Sometimes its man. Sometimes its women..",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzefvnf",
"parent_id": "kzefklk",
"score": -5,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "sanschefaudage",
"body": "Divorce rates for lesbians are higher than gays which seems to suggest that women are more likely to leave a mariage than men.\n\n[wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_of_same-sex_couples)\n\nOf course it's not a 100% proof: are lesbian women really behaving the same in relationships than heterosexual women but it's another piece of evidence just like the divorce initiation rate.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzefr4g",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 19,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "alwaysright12",
"body": "No, they're not\n\nLesbians tend to get married far quicker, much younger and have kids more than gay men.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzeglf4",
"parent_id": "kzefr4g",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Irhien",
"body": "If anything, it would superficially seem that when a divorce is initiated by a woman, the reason the marriage failed was the husband. Non-superficially, I think it just means women more often expect their situation to improve with the divorce, which doesn't say much: could be the judges favoring women during divorces, could be that women are more often the victims of abuse, could be something else.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzefxtz",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "ReplyOk6720",
"body": "Sometimes, getting out of an emotionally unhealthy relationship, is an improvement enough. Many a woman leaving with nothing ng than the clothes on her back, in a shelter. Being alive is an \"improvement\". ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzfj0su",
"parent_id": "kzefxtz",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Afghan_Ninja",
"body": "It's only been ~50yrs since women weren't able to get mortgages, own credit cards, etc. cheating is hard to prove legally sans video evidence, and abuse (physical, verbal, & emotional) was also mainstream and not often seen as genuine abuse. It is a fact that women have been suffering through unhealthy relationships for the majority of our nation's existence.\n\nFrom an incel perspective, women not continuing to suffer is their problem and not an issue with the relationship itself. Thus women choosing to pursue divorce is a problem of \"allowing\" women agency. \n\nYou won't get a salient counter view from anyone not espousing a deeply ahistorical and misogynistic worldview. And such ppl aren't worthy of consideration, past condemnation.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzega2c",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 6,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Admirable_Example524",
"body": "Check your timeline 50 years ago was 1974.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzejub1",
"parent_id": "kzega2c",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "INFPneedshelp",
"body": "It also means they are the one to start the paperwork process. ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzegbro",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 17,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "LilSliceRevolution",
"body": "Yeah, filing the paperwork alone means nothing. It could be that the other partner is busier or whatever. The woman could not be the one who wants the divorce but still be the one to file the paperwork.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzeh6yw",
"parent_id": "kzegbro",
"score": 7,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Hour-Beautiful-9804",
"body": "How dare she take umbrage at my bad behaviour?!? Lol. Perps victim blaming - this is the modern mood. People feeing oppressed because they aren’t allowed to oppress the people they traditionally oppress. One spouse behaves badly and the other is supposed to just put up with it. Nope. No. If one spouse cheats and the other doesn’t want to put up with it they are not the cause because they don’t want to see their spouse run around. And frankly if people don’t want to be married for any reason that’s fine. It doesn’t have to be a failure or a tragedy. That’s just religious people running around wanting life to be some opera.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzegizj",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "bsffrn97",
"body": "This is my opinion to. A marriage were one person is being mistreated, or they're both extremely unhappy, is a failure. Divorce would be an improvement in such situations. If someone thinks \"putting up with mistreatment or unhappiness in a marriage just for the sake of not getting a divorce\" makes them a better person, I'd think they were stupid.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzff2zu",
"parent_id": "kzegizj",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "IronSavage3",
"body": "Where are “they” getting that 80% statistic?",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzehem0",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "LongDongSamspon",
"body": "On top of women initiating the vast majority of divorce, the lesbian divorce rate is higher than male female couples divorce rate - and the gay male divorce rate is the lowest of all. \n\nOn top of that studies have shown that those with more estrogen (even amongst women) are more likely to express dissatisfaction with a long term relationship.\n\nSo it’s pretty clear if you’re not living in denial that women are the main reason marriages fail - no men in lesbian marriage yet the divorce rate is even higher. As troubling as it may be for some to admit, all the evidence, statistical, anecdotal, and scientific, points to women simply getting tired of long term relationships more often than men.\n\nNow I don’t necessarily think women cheat or abuse then leave more than men, but personally I do think that more often women have a type of feeling of growing less attracted over time and sometimes don’t really understand why (though often they grow to think of the man as responsible and the media likes to portray it that way). \n\nHow often do you hear divorcing women saying “we’ve” grown apart, or it’s not working. And what they really mean is they’ve lost the feeling and can no longer bear to be touched or with their husband for reasons that aren’t his fault and they can’t help and don’t really understand themselves.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzehhn4",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 43,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Lesbian women are different than straight women who are different from gay men who are different from straight men. Again unless we have the causes of the divorced ... \n\n\"How often do you hear...\" That's anecdotal. I don't hear that all that often. I mostly hear \"I perform all these services on top of work while he does nothing\". but I'm still not gonna base my opinion on my personal experience rather than the stats. \n\nSo you got the stats?",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzei3j6",
"parent_id": "kzehhn4",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "JayNotAtAll",
"body": "I guess it's just a matter of perspective. If you see \"the cause of divorce\" being those who initiate it then you could argue that women are the biggest causes of divorce.\n\nIt is a very simplistic way to view it though as I think the people who just initiate divorce with no reason are in an extreme minority.\n\nA strong argument for why more women initiate divorce is pretty much what you alluded to. Historically, they had very little agency over their lives. Women couldn't have their own bank accounts until the 70s. Just one example over how women just had to deal with the hand they were dealt with. If they had a bad husband, tough shit, just become a mom who drinks wine at 11am.\n\nNow they have more agency over their lives.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzej1yg",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 9,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "ModeMysterious3207",
"body": "And after marrying a guy for security, and a few years of being supported by him, you can divorce him, get a bunch of his assets, and have even more agency",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzf7hz9",
"parent_id": "kzej1yg",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Horror-Collar-5277",
"body": "Woman is supposed to steer relationship. \n\n\nMan is supposed to do the work.\n\n\nSometimes woman steers relationship at the behest of fuck buddies instead of husband.\n\n\nIf we just get more people to hyphenate their names we can surely succeed in making the world more beautiful.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzejjbf",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": -23,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Why are women supposed to steer? Why are men supposed to work. That's just nonsense in my opinion",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzek49h",
"parent_id": "kzejjbf",
"score": 17,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Entropy_Drop",
"body": "Red pills are assholes. They blame single mothers for their offspring shortcoming, while the absent father, who is the one slacking off, is some kind of victim of the system.\nI just can't justify changing your mind into red pill talking points. Its immoral.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzejrxk",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 5,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "rizzla092",
"body": "You can believe they're assholes but it does not negate the fact that single fathers do significantly better than single mothers who raise degenerates in society.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzf1ymg",
"parent_id": "kzejrxk",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "VanillaIsActuallyYum",
"body": "I'm confused by the premise, honestly. If women are initiating the divorce, does that not imply that the OTHER side is the reason for it? If I stop hanging out with friend X, isn't it generally safe to assume it's because friend X was toxic, not that \\*I\\* was toxic?",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzekkr6",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 159,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Nope. You could be a narcissist. And your friend wasn't worshipping you they way you wanted. We have no idea who is at fault.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzekqv3",
"parent_id": "kzekkr6",
"score": 48,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "VenoVlade",
"body": "Women are more likely to end a relationship, because they no longer believe in soulmates. It’s all about the quality of life in the relationship. There’s no desire to suffer or struggle to rebuild or fix the marriage. Just end it and hop on some dick. \n\nMarried guys are much more willing to preserve and maintain. Because they’re dumb enough to believe there is a ‘one’ out there for them and they’ve already found her.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzelqrb",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": -4,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "dustandchaos",
"body": "No, men stay because they’d rather just cheat but maintain their marriage and household because that’s easier than being a single dad and paying child support and alimony. Women don’t care about starting over so we leave.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzfp76w",
"parent_id": "kzelqrb",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "AmbergrisTeaspoon",
"body": "One could postulate that women have more to gain from divorce... Usually.\n\nAnd that fact is also, usually, based on choices that women make.. and then regret... usually.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzem0gv",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": -6,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "dustandchaos",
"body": "Women don’t regret their divorces. Most people don’t.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzfp9s2",
"parent_id": "kzem0gv",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "thecountnotthesaint",
"body": "Why is the divorce rate higher among lesbians compared to gay men? \n\nhttps://www.simpsonlaw.net/blog/2021/06/rate-of-divorce-for-gay-men-lower-than-for-lesbians/",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzem2ud",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 4,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "bsffrn97",
"body": "Imma go ahead and answer your question using your own source.\n\n\"While we see that **66 per cent of same-sex marriages were among females**, nearly three-quarters of same-sex divorces in 2019 were to female couples.\". More lesbian marriages compared to gay marriages to begin with.\n\n\"**Women also tend to get married faster than gay men** and are likelier to have **previously been married**.\" People who have been previously married are more likely to get divorced again, because of age and experience, divorce not feeling as threatening or daunting to go through as the first time etc. \n\n\"**Women do not tolerate marital misconduct** like adultery as much as men do.\" So women are less likely to put up with mistreatment, which is definitely a positive. \n\nAdd these all together, and you get the answer. Hope this helps!",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzfg56f",
"parent_id": "kzem2ud",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "IrrationalDesign",
"body": ">All it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\n\nIt could say 'women are more likely to initiate steps to break off unsatisfying marriages'. It doesn't say anything about staying in the marriage though, as every divorce 'releases' both parties from the marriage at the same time. It's not like men can stay in the marriages without a woman (obviously only talking about heterosexual marriages) ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzenlgw",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Squiiiidwaaard",
"body": "Lesbians have the highest divorce rate. Heteros in the middle. Gays last. \n\nDisproves everything you just said lol",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzennqk",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 8,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Thekurdishprince",
"body": "Based.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzesqpa",
"parent_id": "kzennqk",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "GrayJedi1982",
"body": "What it DOES mean is that marriage is a bad business deal for most men.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzeodbf",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "changemyview-ModTeam",
"body": "Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: \n\n> **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. \n\nComments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and \"written upvotes\" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzff3oh",
"parent_id": "kzeodbf",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "BeamTeam032",
"body": "It's a stat that conservatives use to blame women for why the divorce rate is so high. As if a man would file for divorce after he cheats on her, or goes into a drunken rage and beats the shit out of her. lmao. \n\nIt's like abortion. It's not the mans fault she got preggo, it's her fault for opening her legs. But if it's her fault, she still doesn't get a say because abortion is wrong. lmao. It's like they want to be able to do whatever they want, whenever they want, and not have to be forced to take responsibility. But that's most conservatives I know.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzeogdq",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Znyper",
"body": "Sorry, u/BeamTeam032 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\r\n\r\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). \r\n\r\nIf you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20BeamTeam032&message=BeamTeam032%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\\[their%20comment\\]\\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/-/kzeogdq/\\)%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. \r\n\r\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzfppwy",
"parent_id": "kzeogdq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "That_North_1744",
"body": "Infidelity does not necessarily result in divorce. There are many varying factors that also contribute to the marital breakdown. \nFinances, children, health, abuse, desertion, religion, external family issues, employment changes, priorities differ, etc.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzeowxy",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 4,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "GazBB",
"body": "Post seems to be in bad faith as the premise itself is false.\n\nI've never seen people, amass, at least in recent times, blaming the women for initiating divorces. In fact it's the opposite. Women get plenty of sympathy.\n\nYou often hear that women talk about how they fell out of love or checked out of the relationship **a long time ago** and things were just getting dragged along. And then you have a ton of people blaming the said woman's husband and how he apparently abused her or wasn't a good husband to begin with which led to her falling out of love.\n\nIn fact in reality, unless there's actual abuse, women who checked out of the marriage a long time ago should be 100% blamed for terrible communication. It shows that they never valued the relationship and simply tagged along for the ride.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzeppdl",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "lizcicle",
"body": "It is possible that the underlying issues *were* communicated but the other party refused to acknowledge/address them - in fact, this is *often* presented as the case in one way or another. You did give a pass to \"actual abuse\", so this is more like refusing to pull their weight in re: household tasks/rearing children/financial contribution/physical intimacy.\n\n\"Hey, can you stop cheating on me/frothing with rage when I don't buy you flowers every fifteen minutes? It hurts my feelings. Let's see a counsellor and work through our problems.\" \n\"No lol sounds like a you problem. Fuck your feelings, I'm having fun.\"\n\nI do agree that if the above isn't the case, then the fault lies more on the person who gave up before proposing any kind of solution.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzf02ng",
"parent_id": "kzeppdl",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "BigKadoLBx",
"body": "Women want their cake and eat it too....\n\nOf course they are the reason a majority of marriages don't last. Give up the beaver 🦫 and stop whining all the time good grief...",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzepzkm",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": -2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "changemyview-ModTeam",
"body": "Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: \n\n> **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. \n\nComments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and \"written upvotes\" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzfez4t",
"parent_id": "kzepzkm",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Pale_Zebra8082",
"body": "After reading through several comments and your responses, I believe this will be difficult to resolve because we don’t all share the same sense of what the “reason” for divorce is, primarily. Nor do we all have a shared view of what would constitute a sufficient problem to reasonably warrant initiating a divorce. \n\nIn each case, there are the inciting problems themselves, or claimed problems. Then there is the tolerance for said problem and the commitment to enduring the problem and desire to work through it. Both are factors in the “reason” a divorce happens. \n\nYou are repeatedly referring to the former, while many commenters are referring to the latter. \n\nI agree with you that it’s unclear whether men or women are more likely to be the source of the “problem”. However, it does seem clear that women are much more likely to hit the threshold of giving up on the marriage in the face of the problem than men are. \n\nAs a result, on average, women are contributing to the divorce rate more than men, based solely on that difference. \n\nNow, this does not entail a value judgement on them. One may believe that they are correct to draw the line where they do and think it’s right for them to cut their losses and walk more readily. But that’s a separate question from whether or not they are the “reason” for the divorce.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzeq2tv",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 4,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "MrGraeme",
"body": ">So I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. \n\nThey're happening because women are initiating divorce. The underlying reason isn't relevant because the relationship hasn't *failed* until one or more partners opt out (file for divorce, etc). That's what kills the relationship. Everything up until that point is conflict within relationships.\n\nThe problem you'll face when seeking a *reason* is that *reasons* go the whole way down. Watch:\n\n1. Man divorces woman. Reason: She cheated on him.\n\n2. Woman cheats on man. Reason: He wasn't giving her the attention she needed.\n\n3. Man wasn't giving attention to woman. Reason: She demanded he work two jobs.\n\n4. Woman demanded man work two jobs. Reason: He had to support the family while he stayed home with the kids.\n\nWe could keep going, but the point that I'm making is that you can pick any arbitrary \"reason\" for the breakdown of a relationship. Ultimately, the *reason* isn't what causes the relationship to fail - terminating the relationship is what causes the relationship to fail. \n\n>All it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nUnsatisfactory is not an objective measurement. It's entirely dependent on what the individual person considers unsatisfactory. If *your* definition of unsatisfactory causes you to break up with your partner, then you're the reason the relationship failed. \n\nThe exception to this is conditional relationships, where both parties have a clear and mutually agreed upon understanding of what behaviours or actions will terminate the relationship. Violating a condition in such a relationship could be considered the same as terminating the relationship.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzeqj2w",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "lizcicle",
"body": "Wouldn't your last paragraph be more the rule than the exception, at least in North America/most western countries? Often wedding vows themselves will specifically mention \"faithfulness/constant faith\" (not cheating), \"sickness and health\", \"love and cherish\" (not abusing each other), etc. *Generally* when people step outside marriages or abuse/assault their partners here it's frowned upon and considered a violation of the metaphorical \"contract\" of marriage. Someone opts out of that contract by breaking their word/vow. \n\nI do understand, however, that there are other cultures where fucking around or enduring some form of what we would call abuse in one way or another is considered just part of a marriage, but from what accounts I've heard, the divorce rates in those cases/countries is much lower - ie. the \"contract\" isn't being broken, it's just part of the deal. (disclaimer: haven't checked those stats, anecdotal evidence, i've been wrong at least 2 or 3 times in my life before and it could be the case here)",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzex4yd",
"parent_id": "kzeqj2w",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "IceBlue",
"body": "No idea why you think anyone has any valid argument against this. People who file for divorce are usually the ones that feel aggrieved so it makes no sense to act like they are the reason why the relationship went sour.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzeqjfa",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 4,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "YetteMan",
"body": "For my divorce, I filed the paperwork even though I did not want a divorce because my ex wife moved in with her parents and wouldn’t let me see my daughter for months. I filed specifically to get a court order forcing her to give me access to my daughter and since it was started in my name it stayed that way.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzf2otf",
"parent_id": "kzeqjfa",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Deaf-Leopard1664",
"body": ">All it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\n\n\nAnd all this says is, women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages, they themselves more than possibly ruined/were the a\\*holes in. So when it became unsatisfactory as consequences for their behavior, they naturally wanted out. This could easily make 60% out of your 80%, we never know.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzeqpm2",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "dustandchaos",
"body": "What? People are equally responsible for making unhappy marriages. It is not a sex thing and you all sound like little incels trying to blame one or the other.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzfomdj",
"parent_id": "kzeqpm2",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "underboobfunk",
"body": "It means the opposite as far as I’m concerned.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzer33z",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "changemyview-ModTeam",
"body": "Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: \n\n> **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. \n\nComments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and \"written upvotes\" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzfexat",
"parent_id": "kzer33z",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "jdaddy15911",
"body": "This probably isn’t going to change your view, but I interpreted the data the same way. I thought, “So. That means 80% of men do some dumb shit.”",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzery04",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "ManYonX",
"body": "It makes sense. In general men pay alimony. If I'm in an unhappy marriage and I get money coming in to bail, I'm tsjong the money. Divorce initiating is aligned to economic incentives.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzese6u",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": -3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Sweaty_Condition6293",
"body": "Quite literally, by definition, it is the reason they fail. STFU",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzeszhf",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Icy_Sunlite",
"body": "Not by definition. If a man is actively committing adultery or constantly getting drunk and beating up his wife to the point of near death, for example, he is at least just as much to blame.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzeziea",
"parent_id": "kzeszhf",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "FugakuWickedEyes",
"body": "Divorce happens because both man and woman succumb to desire. It could be another person, another life, etc. The reason women initiate divorce slightly more is because it is more socially acceptable for them to do so. Fortunately I see men and women be equal very soon, which should \n\n\\- decrease marriages\n\n\\- even out who initiates divorces",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzet0az",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Physical-Bus6025",
"body": "It’s not meant to imply they’re in the wrong. When red pillers use that argument, it’s to simply note women 80% of the time end relationships.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzettci",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "MLeek",
"body": "This stat says nothing about who is “at fault” and everything about who does the labour of filing. \n\nAnd that part shouldn’t be at all surprising.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzeumth",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Ok_Deal7813",
"body": "Women, as a collective group, pick partners based on emotion rather than logic, so they partner with dirt bags often, and women are also fickle so they'll quit on a marriage easier. Either way, being divorced is a huge red flag.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzev3qf",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": -4,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "dustandchaos",
"body": "The fuck?",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzfoqr6",
"parent_id": "kzev3qf",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "neverknowwhatsnext",
"body": "Men cheat. Women betray.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzev4ko",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "changemyview-ModTeam",
"body": "Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: \n\n> **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. \n\nComments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and \"written upvotes\" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzfeugb",
"parent_id": "kzev4ko",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Hot-Collection3273",
"body": "This is a pretty popular viewpoint. I thought it was well known and documented that women have better support systems that allow them to leave marriages easier.\n\nHow do you even characterize someone being “at fault” in a divorce on a moral level? \n\nOn some base level, yes the person who files is at fault for the divorce. They made the character judgement and decided to get married, then decided their judgement was wrong and warranted a divorce. \n\nIs it their fault the marriage was shitty enough to warrant the filing? Can’t really determine that based on who filed",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzexess",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Objective_Reality42",
"body": "Women’s tolerance for discomfort in a relationship is significantly lower than men. Their sense of commitment and loyalty to their children’s future and well being is secondary to their own selfish need to see if the grass is greener. \nWomen initiate the divorce due to the court system heavily favoring them, but usually end up less happy than those who fixed their marriage instead of running away. \nA failed relationship is defined by the outcome. Women filing for divorce is evidence of their own failure to work things out rather than put in a legitimate effort to fix things. Therefore women are at fault for the marriage failing the majority of the time. The commitment you make when getting married is to work things through side by side through thick and thin. Filing is an admission you made a promise you can’t live up to.\n\nStay single, kings. Marriage is way too risky.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzexljv",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": -2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Beneficial-Gur-8136",
"body": "Yes. Please stay single.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzf4y20",
"parent_id": "kzexljv",
"score": 6,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Latin_Stallion7777",
"body": "From a strictly logical standpoing, you're correct that women mainly filing for divorce does not necessarily mean they are the reason the relationship/mariage has failed. \n\n\nHowever, it \\*does\\* strongly indicate that women are the ones primaily giving up on failing relationships, instead of sticking around and working on them. (You basically acknowledge as much when you note women being the ones leaving unsatisfactory marriages. I'm guessing most marriages are unsatisfactory at some point to men, which is a big reason many cheat.) \n\n\nThe burden of persuation/proof should therefore be on you, or anyone else claiming men are the primary problem, to explain why men are usually causing relationships to fail, with women simply responding to completly dead marriages when they file for divorce. \n\n\n(Many men are caught completely off guard when their wife leaves. Meaning that even if she was unhappy, she never really articulated it to the guy, or indicated the importance of desired changes.)",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzexrrz",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": -3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "I never claim men are the problem.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzf0es8",
"parent_id": "kzexrrz",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "JohnConradKolos",
"body": "Trying to \"win\" and say \"women are blah blah\" or \"men are blah blah\" doesn't seem overly productive.\n\nBut it might be useful to understand how men and women behave differently in some scenarios.\n\nTwo ideas for understanding this better, so that we all might be a bit more comfortable with how the world is, and so we can be kind to one another.\n\n1. Consider the flip side of your statement: \"women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\" It might be something like: \"men are more likely to stay in unsatisfactory marriages and try to fix them rather than dissolve them.\" But, as you point out, this doesn't give us any information about why the marriage was unsatisfactory in the first place. If men are less likely to initiate divorce, perhaps they have more resilience in the face of some hardship, or perhaps they are just easier to please and find more marriages \"satisfactory\".\n\n2. One option for trying to get a control group would be to look at same sex couples. Do gay couples or lesbian couples get divorced more or less frequently than each other, or heterosexual marriages? \n\nIt appears as if lesbians couples get divorced about twice as frequently as gay couples. \n\nVia this Wikipedia link: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce\\_of\\_same-sex\\_couples#:\\~:text=The%20lesbian%20divorce%20rate%20is,Male%20divorce%20rate%20%3D%207%25).\n\nThe lesbian divorce rate is much higher than the divorce rate between men: in the same period on average 100 women and 45 men divorced per year (i.e., Lesbian divorce rate = 14%, Gay Male divorce rate = 7%).[^(\\[14\\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_of_same-sex_couples#cite_note-14)\n\nSo, while it is possible that women divorce men because of unsatisfactory behavior, other men seem to satisfied. Also, women not only find being married to a man unsatisfactory, they also find being married to a women unsatisfactory.\n\nAgain, the point of any of this should not be to be judgmental, but rather we should seek to be understanding.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzexwj5",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 7,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "bsffrn97",
"body": ">in the same period on average 100 women and 45 men divorced per year\n\nI don't know if this is included in the study you referenced, I don't speak Dutch so I couldn't read it, but it's important to note that lesbian marriages are way more common in the Netherlands than gay marriages.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzfej7l",
"parent_id": "kzexwj5",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "LegacyLivesOnGP",
"body": "I believe cheating between men and women are about equal. There is a perceived economic benefit in many cases for a woman to initiate divorce so if she finds another partner she will formalize the divorce. But if a man finds another partner he will keep it on the low with the reverse occurring: an incentive to remain in the marriage.\n\n\nSo I dont think the right conversation is to determine who to allocate blame to. That just results in a gender war. The discussion is more, who has the most to gain from a divorce? Would men divorce equal to women if they had the same incentives? My theory is yes",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzexxg6",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "KorLee",
"body": "I wholeheartedly agree with your statetment that divorce percentages do not equate to who was at fault. However, I think clarification on what you define as \"fail\" is necessary. \n\nA relationship could be \"failed\" while the two members of the party are still legally married. If 80%, or more accurately 69% of divorces are initiated by women, would it be fair to say that women are the majority of why relationships *end*? \n\nBy approaching it in this light, it not only acknowledges that there may be many reasons to why the relationship \"failed\" in the first place, while also acknowledging the statistic that women initiate divorces substantially higher than men. It's a more neutral way of looking at the statistic as we don't place blame on whos fault the divorce was.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzexyrd",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 5,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Own_Set_6148",
"body": "Most divorces and break ups are not due to cheating. \n\nWomen are more emotional and affected by social pressure. It’s very common for them to make decisions based off of what their female friends and even social media tell them is “right”. \n\nThen you have western culture telling women that they don’t need a man and encouraging separation and independence when they don’t get what they want. \n\nMarriage is a losing proposition for western men.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzey6rj",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Itchy-Status3750",
"body": "Lmfao it’s a losing proposition when you’re a jackass. Women are not more emotional just because you think so.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzfcp2g",
"parent_id": "kzey6rj",
"score": 4,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Terrible_Length007",
"body": "Well when generally the man will lose much more than the women in the divorce of course they are more hesitant.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzeyf0t",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "bad-brains13",
"body": "Recent data provided by the mental health community reports that individuals or couples seeking help due infidelity, nearly 70% of the infidelity was committed by the female within heterosexual relationships.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzeykl8",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "bsffrn97",
"body": "Source?",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzfbnrc",
"parent_id": "kzeykl8",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "thegreatmaster7051",
"body": "Aren't lesbians the most likely to get divorced?",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzeywcg",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 4,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Happy_Weakness_1144",
"body": "I think your proposition can be disproved pretty simply, actually.\n\nYour position presumes a rational, reasonable, suite of standards and if those aren't met, she ends the marriage.\n\nThat's a tautology. You can't assume that the standards are rational, or reasonable.\n\nThe fault for someone failing to meet a standard can be because of BOTH parties. One can fail to meet reasonable standards, and another can set standards most people cannot meet.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzez5wq",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 22,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "I literally mentioned that. The fault can be the woman the man or neither",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzf03mm",
"parent_id": "kzez5wq",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "bad-brains13",
"body": "Although I’m not entirely sure how accurate the numbers are, it’s widely reported that lesbian marriages end in divorce almost most twice as often as heterosexual marriages.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzezjz6",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Fantactic1",
"body": "The 80% stats aren’t necessarily to prove who broke the relationship (if it’s mostly one person). \n\nRather, it’s to prove the point that women can feel confident they’ll be getting the better end of the deal in divorce proceedings.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzezpf7",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "goldyacht",
"body": "Well initiating divorce imo is the reason for the relationship failing, as once you’re at that point it’s likely over. It’s also easier for women to divorce as they are less likely come out on the losing end if you look at it this way. \n\nYears ago if a women with kids divorced they probably would have had it pretty rough but that’s not the case anymore. Now more than likely they will get the kids, half or more of family assets, child support or alimony etc. Compared to men who will likely lose their kids, half their assets and still have to contribute financially to a partner who they are no longer with. It’s not really a great deal for men. \n\nRelationships work because both parties benefit but after marriage for a man it’s unlikely he will be in a great spot after a divorce especially if kids are involved. A lot of women also have better support systems than men and will no longer have to deal with things like housework for a husband which is an added benefit as most women will probably be doing the brunt of it. \n\nWhile I don’t think the sole reason is always on women, I do think they are in a lot better position to leave marriage then most men so they will likely take that option more times than men who probably believe their life will get worse whether the relationship is greatest or not.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzf25kr",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Turbulent_Emu_637",
"body": "\"to have and to hold from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, until we are parted by death. This is my solemn vow.\" \\*unless of course I change my mind. no big. - 80% of women?",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzf2bv4",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Have you looked through the peoples vow and if it includes till death do we part?",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzf2ncd",
"parent_id": "kzf2bv4",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "meadowbelle",
"body": "The talking point re: women initiring divorce is simply to attempt to shame women for having a backbone and leaving. It's not often mentioned that women will do this, even at great financial cost and knowing they'll need to do most of the childcare solo, which says to me that the situation they are in is pretty damn bad",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzf2if1",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "lumberjack_jeff",
"body": "Perhaps not, but it is strong evidence that contrary to popular opinion, women don't think they are harmed by divorce as much as men do.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzf2iqf",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Knave7575",
"body": "Women initiate divorces because they have the most the gain. The disparity reflects the unfairness of the family law system rather than who is to “blame”. \n\nA competent mother who initiates a divorce will, at worst, get the kids half the time. At best, she walks away with the kids and child support, and is free to remarry. \n\nA competent father at best will get the kids half the time (unless the mother is an epic screwup). Even worse, the father has a reasonable chance of losing the kids entirely, which is emotionally and financially devastating. \n\nIf either parent was just as likely to end up with the kids, divorces would probably be equally initiated by both men and women.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzf2mck",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "bsffrn97",
"body": ">A competent mother who initiates a divorce will, at worst, get the kids half the time.\n\nCorrection, [will at worst be murdered.](https://vawnet.org/sc/scope-problem-intimate-partner-homicide-statistics)",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzfbjo4",
"parent_id": "kzf2mck",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Flimsy_Dimension_958",
"body": "My husband wanted me to do all the work for the divorce. He didn't want to be with me but didn't want to divorce?? So I get it. In my experience they want to be seen as \"See! I tried everything and she still left\"",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzf2sb3",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 4,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "MzFrazzle",
"body": "When I finally got the divorce done my ex said \"whew, that was a mission!\"\n\nFOR WHOM????? I did all the paperwork, went to the sheriff of the court twice (my ex moved to a new district), couriered the paperwork myself between the court departments, went to court twice (alone). \n\nMy ex's tag line was \"I was going to do that\" - especially when the dishes were growing blue mould by the time I cracked and did them. Getting a dishwasher did not improve the situation.",
"date": "2024-04-15",
"id": "kzncajl",
"parent_id": "kzf2sb3",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "ilivalkyw",
"body": "No fault divorces are the reason. There is financial gain to be had by wrecking a marriage and then walking away from it. A woman can cheat, leave her husband, and take all his stuff...and kids. So, lots do.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzf38jh",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "rudster",
"body": "I don't think even your cheating point would answer the question. A lot of marriages have dead bedrooms. Does a partner who \"cheats\" on their spouse who refused sex for a year, because that partner smells bad to them, because the other partner is on medication, because their partner because because...\n\nPoint being people are complicated, and there's no simple stat that can assign fault. \n\nThere are some hints that can guide one's intuition. Like what happens to the divorce rate after certain events, like sudden change of income, medical diagnosis, etc",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzf3j5r",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "InterestMost4326",
"body": "No, it means women are more likely to consider a marriage unsatisfactory on an earlier part of its decline than men. And more likely to consider even a marriage whose quality is stagnant, unsatisfactory.\n\nSo if a marriage is declining, on average the woman will sound the alarm earlier than the man.\n\nThe woman isn't right or wrong, women are just naturally more sensitive to and aware of negative things than men, because they're more vulnerable. The psychological research bears this out.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzf3vfq",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "claratheresa",
"body": "Why would men ever file? They would lose all the benefits of marriage and would have to split assets. By forcing it on her to file after her tolerating his shitty behavior he can stall and play the victim.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzf40gp",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "die_eating",
"body": "It takes two to tango. ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzf443f",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Ansuz07",
"body": "Sorry, u/die_eating – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\r\n\r\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). \r\n\r\nIf you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20die_eating&message=die_eating%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\\[their%20comment\\]\\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/-/kzf443f/\\)%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. \r\n\r\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
"date": "2024-04-15",
"id": "kzonpp8",
"parent_id": "kzf443f",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "inkstickart2017",
"body": "Uh, why do you want to change your view?",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzf4jbt",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "reddituserjl",
"body": "Correlation is not causation, looking at only who initiates divorce means little to nothing about why a divorce happened. Ice cream sales go up with crime, the real reason? People steal more in the summer. Unless you have a source where divorced people are put in a study and then data is analyzed there’s no substance for who and why marriages fail and where the blame is from.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzf4jlx",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "ShoalsCreek",
"body": "My ex would have rather tried to kill me again for the fourth time than get a divorce. Had to leave in the middle of the night. Best decision for both of us.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzf4zf5",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "nekro_mantis",
"body": "Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzhygjw",
"parent_id": "kzf4zf5",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Curious_Working5706",
"body": "Someone said this to me the other day. Like, they genuinely believe that women are 100% at fault for “ending the marriage” because they have decided to start the proceedings for divorce (usually after something their husbands have done).\n\nThis is like saying that women are at fault for their men going to prison for beating them to near death because *they* decided to dial 911.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzf5kmt",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "ModeMysterious3207",
"body": "> All it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nIn other words, women are more likely to be faithless and abandon their marriages as soon as their husbands aren't useful.\n\n> So I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. \n\nWomen marry for security and safety. Once they are able to provide those for themselves they no longer need a husband.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzf61yi",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": -2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Source.. On useful\n\nAgain source.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzf6dri",
"parent_id": "kzf61yi",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "adw802",
"body": "Women may not be to blame for why a relationship is failing but the statistic does prove that it is overwhelmingly women that are giving up on failing relationships. Not a moral judgement - it could be that some women have very good reason to call it quits.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzf676b",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Purple_Screen3628",
"body": "The demise of a relationship is the fault of both people.. degrees and levels of fault varies. ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzf6lgo",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "ILoveAnAsianBilat",
"body": "Men are not more likely to cheat.. that's a common misconception. Women cheat just as often and they are less likely to get caught. Women are more careful because the financial fallout of cheating is usually more pronounced for them. So that skews the statistics. Women cheat just as often.\n\nAs far as divorce being initiated.. it is true that women initiate a much higher percentage of divorces. Since they cheat as much as men, it seems like you said, they are just less willing to stay in unsatisfactory relationships. Men are more willing to maintain the status quo and keep things they way they are.. despite not being happy. That doesn't mean one party is more at fault than the other. It just means women are more willing to call it quits sooner under the same circumstances than men are. I'm not sure of the psychology behind this.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzf7fez",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Cheating just as often. Citation?\n\nThat said i can agree fault is not always one or the other",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzf8guu",
"parent_id": "kzf7fez",
"score": 6,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Smergmerg432",
"body": "I feel like red pill can swap any thing around. If they’re the ones who finally get fed up enough to divorce, it sounds like men are the ones who keep messing up. (Obviously, not true all round, but failing to see the logic beyond victim blaming)",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzf7ty2",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "linqingfeng810",
"body": "While it's true that women initiate the majority of divorces, this statistic alone doesn't explain the complexities behind the reasons for relationship breakdowns. It's important to consider the social, emotional, and financial factors that contribute to such decisions. Often, women may face societal pressures or have less financial independence, which can delay the decision to initiate divorce even when the relationship is already failing. Additionally, the initiation of divorce does not necessarily imply fault or blame on one party; it could simply be an acknowledgment that the relationship is no longer sustainable for both individuals involved.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzf8jmn",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "popobono",
"body": "Read your own post\n\n>All it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages \n\nYou just disproved your own belief using the exact argument you’re trying to disprove. You said women are unsatisfied easier thus they leave more. This is the general redpill argument on why women are at fault, because they are portrayed as being “eternally incapable of being satisfied”",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzf9jn7",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 4,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Prestigious-Phase131",
"body": "They didn't say women are more likely to not be satisfied, they said they're more likely to end the marriage when unsatisfied.",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzj7szm",
"parent_id": "kzf9jn7",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "supastyles",
"body": "Your CMV uses a statistic at odds with your \"view\", then uses hypothetical anecdotal scenarios to back up your \"view\".\nThen ask for empirical data to convince you!?\n\nYour \"view\" is a baseless opinion that you are asking anyone to sway you. \n\nYou started this conversation and brought up *A* stat and provided 0 actual reasons why it is wrong, or why your view is right. \n\n\nI'm definitely not a red pill but that's Just Lazy! (You're starting out by making them look good, 😔)",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzfa78u",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Salty_Sky5744",
"body": "If anything I’d say this is proof that they’re usually not the problem.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzfc5pu",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "thapussypatrol",
"body": "Hypergamy dictates that women will have a higher tendency in the current age to separate from their partners (current age = women now have equal economic status yet more than equal access to sex/relationships); men aren't hypergamous; they're not even necessarily more infidelious because cheating as a men is naturally more challenging than cheating as a woman, seeing as men are *way* more likely to say yes to casual (or even more serious yet scandalous) sex than women are in society. Women with hypergamy, being more picky, means that they're also more likely to be less satisfied with what they have compared with men whom tend to be a lot more centred, confident and satisfied with their lives on balance; men tend to find their own happiness whereas women tend to require it provided by their relationship/partner (sorry, that's not that controversial)",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzfch8w",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 4,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "zouss",
"body": "Lol you really are throwing out pseudoscientific bullshit like it's proven fact. \"Women are hypergamous and more emotional\" where's your evidence for this bro? For a rational man you don't seem to have much critical thinking ability",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzguhue",
"parent_id": "kzfch8w",
"score": 5,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Electrical_King4147",
"body": "The belief stems from the idea that women hold the power to initiate relationships primarily, since they are the gender who is in higher demand ie men pursue women primarily, women are seen as the prize rather than men as an aggregate. If you look at it from that angle it means that a relationship happens because of a woman's choice, who she chooses for herself, therefor if the relationship fails for whatever reason it is her fault as well since the relationship exists as a result of her choice ie she either picked really badly and had enough, or she picked well and treated that person really badly therefor drove him away. Them starting most divorces means the former of picking badly and then choosing to leave therefor it is ultimately her fault.\n\n \nObviously it's a hyper simplified logic but if you look at it from that perspective then yea ok. If she wanted x, she should have found someone who also wanted x and not y and been clear about what she wanted in a relationship and made sure the other person also wanted that too. Obviously people can lie, and people can also miss signs or be naive.\n\n \nIt's basically placing blame. Sometimes someone is more at fault for something ending than the other person, sometimes it's no ones fault, sometimes its everyones fault. For whatever reason women are the ones who are doing most of the divorcing. I'm assuming guys who don't like marriage or want commitment will avoid it. Maybe there's some guys who are loyal to a fault and getting divorced by trashy wives who scapegoat them, maybe there's some guys who are the misogyny classic trope and as soon as they get married turn into a megadouche and eventually get divorce. Who knows. If you wanna know the intricate details of every situation you need cameras everywhere. It's otherwise anecdote and conjecture.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzfftp1",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "SnooPandas2078",
"body": "I think a lot of people are kind of missing what OP is saying...\n\nThat filing for divorce =/= ruining the relationship.\n\nDamn.\n\nI agree with OP.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzfg2l9",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "RealisticLime8665",
"body": "This is the view of every woman with a cluster B personality disorder.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzfgm4e",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "LucinaIsMyTank",
"body": "That’s a lot of mental gymnastics for that one captain. A better argument would be how women probably are quicker at realizing when relationships are unhealthy due to genetics giving them higher EQ.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzfhnwu",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Organic_Muffin280",
"body": "Women destroy the relationship because they are the more emotionally oriented ones. But men screw up by getting lazy and make women lose their feelings",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzfhpii",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Sc00tzy",
"body": "I bet men would initiate more if they didn’t typically lose half their shit in the process",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzfi6wl",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 5,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "MzFrazzle",
"body": "They 'lose half their shit' because their wives sacrifice their careers, health and earning potential for years raising offspring.",
"date": "2024-04-15",
"id": "kzncfn9",
"parent_id": "kzfi6wl",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Arervia",
"body": "Women get money when they divorce, that's why they do it, the law is rigged for them to initiate divorce.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzfi8ms",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Critical_Sherbet7427",
"body": "80% is a percentage too high",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzfjouo",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "underboobfunk",
"body": "Isn’t it typically the wronged party who files for divorce?",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzfk4yl",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "KGmagic52",
"body": "No. Look up no fault divorce. She files just because \"she's not happy\" anymore.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzgp5ln",
"parent_id": "kzfk4yl",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Naus1987",
"body": "I always figured it was because men initiate relationships. \n\nPeople who initiate always want the relationship more than the receiver. So they’re less likely to call it quits.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzfkrxn",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "GloomyOffice6002",
"body": "Nice display of willful blindness to the fact the social script - for both men AND women - is still written such that men are the pursuers. Women can only \"gatekeep\" to the men who approach their gate. Touch grass.",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzkikpi",
"parent_id": "kzfkrxn",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Sn0fight",
"body": "In my opinion men are much more comfortable staying miserable.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzfm0so",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "jakeofheart",
"body": "Lesbian divorces have a 65% to 75% divorce rate.\n\nIf it’s even worse when you remove men from the equation, then it’s likely that men are not the problem.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzfn62v",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 4,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "youvelookedbetter",
"body": "There are lots of other factors that go into those situations though. You can't actually compare heterosexual marriages and homosexual marriages (which have not been around for that long) in good faith.",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzhm0n2",
"parent_id": "kzfn62v",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Kfrr",
"body": "70%* \n\nIt's still an alarming statistic, especially when you couple it with the fact that 79.9% of custodial parents are women. \n\nStatistically speaking, entering a marriage from a man's perspective means that you have a 40% chance to divorce. Of that 40%, there a 70% chance that it was initiated by the woman and an 80% chance she gets the kids. \n\nRegardless of the *reason* that a y specific marriage might fail, there's always going to be bad eggs that know they're significantly more likely to get the kids if they decide they don't want to be with the man anymore. \n\nTerrifying statistics, especially from a dude's perspective.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzfn9qd",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 4,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "KitchenSchool1189",
"body": "Most of the women I've known are self possessed malcontents. Fortunately for me my wife and her friends are not in that category.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzfnin8",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Digitalanalogue_",
"body": "In lesbian marriages theyre 100%. Soo….",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzfp09o",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "MGT1111",
"body": "Women don't file for divorce in unsatisfsctory marriage but they file for divorce in whatever mariages they are, satisfactory too. They file for divorce because the system aims at favoring women, is set at destroying men, and made it a profitable business for the women. Having divorced the man, they can get his money, take his children, continue to the next man, divorce him and so on while still getting state money. All it shows, it's women having zero commitment to working on their marriage but once the slightest problem has occurred running away and only exploiting the system which is happy in doing so. \n\nEven, in theory the claim was true and women divorce in unsatisfactory marriages, the lack of symmetry only shows the bias in female favour as men have to stay in marriages even when being abused by women, being cheated on by them, exploited, taken advantage and so on. This has nothing to do with redpilled men, oh, no, but it has to do with the attempt of silencing everyone with the claim of them being redpilled which is a common misandrist tactic applied by man hating feminists. The question and subsequently reason of why relationships fail is more pervasive than this statistic but can be attributed to the same source. For men it's simply about risk management and this statistic is just a smal fraction in the big picture and puzzle \n\nIn our world, of course, it is o.k.to blame man for everything, no matter what it is but to criticize women well that's a blasphemy against the holy supreme gender who never does wrong. I actually do not want to change your mind. It's like to ask a racist to stop hating whatever group of people they dislike. The truth is that women file tbe majority of divorces is that women are the most priviliged group of society and can afford it. The ones that can't afford it, don't file for divorce or are unable to do it even if they want. Well, that's upsets you, the break up of the status quo, that someone dares to criticize women too and not only men.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzfqnwy",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Texan2116",
"body": "I wonder if....this has to do with the fact that the women,know they will be able to date pretty soon after?",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzfrwle",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "justtrashtalk",
"body": "too many men openly say they waited until she did. I KNOW some who did. women are, more emotional sure, more emotionally intelligent than men. they know when its over....some men are: I'm not hitting you, not abusing you, not cheating, this is fine. women got a limited time to find a spouse, men can conceive into their 80's.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzfvr5e",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Environmental-Ad5551",
"body": "Men and women are similarly unfaithful, unpleasant, and duplicitous. On the other hand, women are far more likely to be awarded custody in any contested divorce. Thats the real reason: women have less to lose.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzfvrz0",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 5,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "freakydeku",
"body": "men simply give women custody…",
"date": "2024-04-15",
"id": "kznh1zq",
"parent_id": "kzfvrz0",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Old-Sock-9321",
"body": "It may mean they are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages. It may also mean they have a much lower threshold for what they deem an unsatisfactory marriage. The latter could be mean the women are at fault, since marriage is supposed to be through thick and thin.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzfxrtm",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Total_Yankee_Death",
"body": "Across multiple countries lesbian marriages are [substantially more likely to end in divorce](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_of_same-sex_couples#Divorce_rates) than gay male or heterosexual marriages. \n\nThere's a common denominator here and it isn't men.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzfyv65",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 5,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "88NORMAL_J",
"body": "I still haven't seen a decent rebuttal against this point yet",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzgt2tv",
"parent_id": "kzfyv65",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "tulipthegreycat",
"body": "There weren't as many divorces before because women didn't have rights. It is very hard to leave when you can't own property or have your own bank account. Or if the most money you can make is 50% lower than a man's. \n\nWomen initiate divorces because they can and no longer need to put up with mens terrible behaviors. \n\nMen have to catch up on learning how to behave like equal, respectful, loving partners. Many of which weren't raised to be that way. \n\nIn the future, it will become 50/50, but it will take years of society growing and forcing men to behave as equal partners and feel safe to behave as an equal partner without societal ridicule for that to change. Essentially, women's right and the ability to say no to men and provide for themselves instead is shifting faster than the societal shift for men to learn to respect women and treat them as equals in a relationship, and for men to feel safe acting to behave that way without ridicule. \n\nYou can see it in the reason why women leave. And you can see it in the slow shift that it isn't 80% of women initiating anymore. It is still more women than men, but it will take time for society to full shift as new generations of men are raised to treat their spouses as equals. \n\nAnd to be fair, I would like to point out that there are plenty of women who don't treat their partner equally, and have a toxic fake view feminism who think they are feminists, but are really misandrists. And it wouldn't surprise me at all if their husband's left them either. But as of now, there are more men who don't treat their partners right than women stemming from societal misogyny, which is, hopefully, slowly dying away. \n\nBoth women and men cheat. Both women and men can lose their libido. Both women and men can be disrespectful and distant. Both women and men can grow apart and change. But currently, men are more likely to push all the chores and child-rearing onto women, and men are more likely to be looked down on if they are not the bread winner or if they do chores and child-rearing. There's a lot of women power and women empowerment in society fighting misogyny. But there's not many people fighting how misogyny treats men poorly, too- there's needs to be more people fighting for men to feel safe to do traditionally feminine tasks so that when they aren't the breadwinner they don't break down and become assholes because of insecurities. They need to take initiative in maintaining their household with daily tasks and chores without being asked by just using their eyes to see what needs to be done. Neither person should be the one making lists of chores and asking the other to do them. It should be a conversation of all tasks that need to be done, and then you divide them evenly. And you understand that sometimes the other needs help - even if loading the dishwasher isn't your chore, you do it when the other person is sick so they can rest, and they do the same for you when you are sick. Even if someone is sick for a long period, chance are the other person will become sick for a long period at some point in their life too if you live long enough and stay together. Speaking of that, something like 90% (please find actual percentage, I read about it a while back) of men will divorce their wife if she develops a life-threatening illness. \n\nSo my opinion is that it comes down to misogyny within society that leads to men not acting as equal partners within a marriage for many reasons.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzfyvm2",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": -2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "88NORMAL_J",
"body": "When it comes down to it the lesbian divorce rate is twice that of married gay men. There is no way to blame men for that. Women are worse then men at maintaining marriages. It's ok to say that you know. Women have higher pain tolerance then men. It's just differences it's okay for them to be there.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzgv16x",
"parent_id": "kzfyvm2",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "AzureDreamer",
"body": "I think anyone with life experience can attest there are great fabulous reasons for divorce.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzfzni9",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Threash78",
"body": "We don't have to just look at straight couples. There is also the fact that lesbian couples have higher divorce rates than straight couples and straight couples have higher divorce rates than gay male couples. I mean, end of the day it depends on what you mean by \"reason\", if women start the majority of divorces then at it's more basic point they are the reason.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzg31xt",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "DamnColdVampires",
"body": "Alsoooo…if I didn’t take care of anything, nothing would ever have happened! From the beginning to the end of my marriage. So there’s also that.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzg4orv",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Winter_Ad4517",
"body": "If women are not the reason for majority of divorces then a marriage which has only men must have the highest divorces rate and marriages with only women must be the happiest.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzg51f0",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "NYdude777",
"body": "Women initiate at a wildly higher rate because they have alot more to gain. Many States have laws that HIGHLY favor the female monetarily and with custody when kids are involved.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzg5mkp",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "JesseDx",
"body": "It's not that either is more \"at fault\" but that men are more likely to get completely fucked over in divorce court (and thus generally are more hesitant to file). \"Cheaper to keep her\" is the popular refrain, though it's not something I'd ever be willing to endure personally",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzg64bz",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "jasonhn",
"body": "most divorces don't happen due to infidelity but rather a growing divide in what a woman expects from the relationship vs what the man expects and women tend to have much higher expectations.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzg6tqu",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "KGmagic52",
"body": "Women get relationship FOMO more than men.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzgo6e3",
"parent_id": "kzg6tqu",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "sczmrl",
"body": "> All it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nThis is true under the assumption that a marriage alway satisfy both parties in the same way. But a marriage may be unsatisfactory for a woman and not for a man.\n\nOk, so it’s more common for women to find a marriage unsatisfactory with respect to men? No, because this would be true under the assumption that if a man and a woman are in an unsatisfactory marriage they would react in the same way. But it may happen that a man is worried that he may have to pay alimony while the woman may feel it as an incentive to leave.\n\nA stat is just a measure of something and will not describe anything more than that. You need to measure several things to a have an overview of the world.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzg76ve",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "mrdunnigan",
"body": "Well…. First one has to make a distinction between a marriage under God and a “marriage” under the State because the particular OATHS are *radically* different and so the respective *divorces* are just NOT EQUAL.\n\nAfter making this distinction, one can understand *viscerally* why one oath is much harder/more consequential to break than the other, although, the real world “penalties” do not necessarily reflect this metaphysical Reality.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzg84qk",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "changemyview-ModTeam",
"body": "Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzgi0hj",
"parent_id": "kzg84qk",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "y2jeff",
"body": "Yet another popular opinion. Maybe just ignore the redpilled bullshit.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzgcwgz",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "arkstfan",
"body": "The addition of no fault divorce laws reduced suicide rates among women by around 20%. Tracking numbers the drop would occur in a state after the change while neighboring states would not experience such a drop until making divorce easier. \n\nThose changes had no impact on suicide rates among men. \n\nDomestic violence rates also declined as states liberalized divorce. \n\nWhile women do initiate the majority of divorces, I’d say more like three out of five than 80%. In my time in family law it was common in uncontested divorces for the husband to separate or move out (often to the company of his next spouse) and simply give his wife money and expect her to do all the hassle of getting an attorney and filling out paperwork and getting their pre-agreed property and custody settlement approved.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzgcyt3",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 7,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Aim-So-Near",
"body": "Shut up",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzgdrpf",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "anooblol",
"body": "Just to give you a big reason why. \n\nDivorce paperwork is required for custodial arrangements, and the location where the child is considered to be “living”, to determine which school they’re going to. And everything else associated with the children. \n\nWomen tend to be in the driver’s seats, with respect to the children’s issues. \n\nSo even if it’s a 50/50 equal decision, both parties want a divorce. The woman is more likely to be thinking about how to deal with “these sorts of problems”. And “those sorts of problems” require legal paperwork.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzgfkum",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "nekro_mantis",
"body": "Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzhw2gx",
"parent_id": "kzgfkum",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "look_at_the_eyes",
"body": "A woman initiation divorce tells me she, quite literally, takes initiative for action. This tells me she probably took a lot of initiative action inside the relationship as well. For example for a more equal divide of tasks, better communication, trying to motivate their partner to be active in the relationship and be emotionally present etc.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzgft2b",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "nekro_mantis",
"body": "Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzhvxfv",
"parent_id": "kzgft2b",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "wise_potato23",
"body": "I would have to counter it with any country where the divorced women won't take half of the man's shit, or in the relationships where the women are the ones making more, the ratios are flipped, it is expected throughout the world for the man to be the main bread winner, meaning that in divorces, specially in countries where half of the money is split, women always come on top, with more rights to custody, and end up holding a bigger bag than when they started (ofcourse in most cases and not all), specially when this thing has become more and more socially accepted that women would do this.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzgftdc",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "bigedcactushead",
"body": "How do you explain the fact lesbians divorce at twice the rate of gay men!",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzggxkj",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "SchmeckleHoarder",
"body": "Look at woman who won the lottery vs a man. The numbers are fucking crazy for divorce, too crazy to just be a \"coincidence.”",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzghr8o",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "ReplyOk6720",
"body": "What is the saying, all happy families are alike, but each unhappy family is different. I think filing the paperwork means, one gender files the paperwork more than the other. Doesn't mean anything more than that. It doesn't say why. Husband had been cheating on me for years. Running me down verbally to other friends whilw telling me that they didn't like me, and so isolating me. I still loved him. I initially didn't want to even consider divorce. But my friends and therapist encouraged me to file for separation, bc fears he was going to financially destroy me. While he wasnt interested in fixing things, he actually did not want to be divorced. Don't ask me why. I filed citing irreconcilable differences because honestly I just wanted to get through it with the minimum of distress. ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzghsam",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "nekro_mantis",
"body": "Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzhvq4b",
"parent_id": "kzghsam",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "CranberryBauce",
"body": "What's funny is that there was a time not long ago when women couldn't initiate divorces, so too many women stayed with abusive, imbalanced, unhealthy men. They don't have to do that anymore. Women initiate 80% of divorces because a lot of men suck.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzgigqb",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "88NORMAL_J",
"body": "So why would lesbians divorce at twice the rate of gay people?",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzgu5vj",
"parent_id": "kzgigqb",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "itsforwork",
"body": "No. It does mean they are the ones giving up first",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzgjm77",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "AzLibDem",
"body": "[Hoe\\_Math covered this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDhde8MSwBA&t=320s)",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzgllfv",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "jackamackat",
"body": "Your position is not unreasonable but that's a very high percentage. Extremely high. The simplest explanation which requires the least mental gymnastics and rationalization is that women are not as interested in maintaining marriage.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzgn7q1",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "KGmagic52",
"body": "Women initiate 80% of divorces and still looking for men to take the blame. Women are just allergic to accountability.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzgnhlo",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "residential_logic",
"body": "Yes, it is as the law encourages easy, divorce, and women who are the the majority of the filers because of no-fault divorce, nobody is at fault. The women tend to get everything they want.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzgpg4o",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Sometimesmaybegay",
"body": "I can honestly say after watching the older men around me in my life I completely understand why it’s so high. My dad, his friends, my uncles treated their wives like dogshit. They didn’t leave but I would’ve never blamed them if they did. Completely changed my worldview and now I tend to side with women over men even as a dude.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzgpxvn",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "changemyview-ModTeam",
"body": "Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzh4ny1",
"parent_id": "kzgpxvn",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Pale_Kitsune",
"body": "I mean, if someone wants to divorce, there's likely a reason, and that reason often stems from the partner.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzgqks0",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Responsible_Fig8657",
"body": "Have you considered that my ex wife is fucking whore?",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzgrl68",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "JohnnySpoons82",
"body": "All I can say is, in my experience, the person who files for divorce is the one who got fed up with the other ones’ *BULLSHIT*\nSource: trust me bro my ex is a bitch",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzgsedp",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "changemyview-ModTeam",
"body": "Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzh42j9",
"parent_id": "kzgsedp",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "NotYourGa1Friday",
"body": "I initiated my divorce after escaping abuse. He never would have divorced, he was happy to have me stay under his thumb forever. \n\nSo yeah, I initiated the divorce 😂",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzgul4x",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "changemyview-ModTeam",
"body": "Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzh3w4g",
"parent_id": "kzgul4x",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "couldntyoujust",
"body": "Marriage is meant to be a \"for life\" commitment to the other person. And many of these men are being divorced by their wives, not because he's abusive, or had an affair, or anything like that. They're being divorced because the wife is just \"meh, I'm not happy here anymore, my husband means well but he's depressed, stressed out, etc and so I'm bored.\" \n\nNow, I get why that can hurt and stress a woman out so much, but the solution is to work on the marriage, and be honest about feelings, and commit that regardless our feelings, we made a commitment for life, and we're going to work through this together no matter how long it takes. \n\nI think the worst part of all of this is that when a woman divorces her husband like this, she has already spent the last six months, year, several years, secretly grieving the loss of the relationship and letting it go. Meanwhile she still smiles when she sees you, she still kisses you, she may even - like my ex wife - make out with you and have passionate sex with you... and all the while she's grieving the loss of you and the loss of your relationship like you died and she is a widow. Until she's finally reached \"acceptance\" that you are not her husband anymore and she will not be married to you anymore and then when she finally tells you after she's already cut you off emotionally inside herself, only then does she cut you off emotionally from her and force you into the grieving process. Suddenly you go from \"we have our problems but we still love each other\" to \"she left me! WTF!?!?\" \n\nI'm divorced myself. My wife left because she felt like I wasn't a \"partner\" in our marriage and parenting anymore. And there's some truth to that. The reason? I'm struggling with ADHD, Depression, and we lived with my folks (I still do) because we couldn't get ahead enough to buy a house or even afford an apartment and move out. The prices have gotten that ridiculous. \n\nMy parents meanwhile, have their own ideas about what's right and wrong for us to do with regards to parenting and all that. And my mom especially henpecked me every opportunity she got about what I was doing wrong as a parent in just normal interactions with my son; often in front of her. Believe me, I tried to oppose her, and tell her that what she was doing was inappropriate. She was letting us live there, so I was automatically in the wrong. And worse, I'm terrible with verbal self defense and thinking on my feet. \n\nI would always think later about what she had said and how she had won and realized that it was because my brain falls apart when it's afraid and in those moments, it's terrified because on the one hand, I need her to respect me as her grandson's father, and on the other, she has her finger on the button of whether we stay or end up out on the street. So when I might have remembered a point that would have shut her up, I'm not even aware of it in the moment, it only comes to me later when I calm down how she's actually in the wrong and gaslighting me and how she's being a massive hypocrite.\n\nAnd worse than that, my dad is not unwilling to get physically violent with me, though he's only ever spanked or pushed me during my childhood and adolescence. He also had this thing where he goes drill Sargent and lays into me with demoralizing emotional abuse while physically backing me into a corner. It's demoralizing. He will back her up 100% in the moment even if she's terribly in the wrong from any neutral observer's perspective. God forbid I tell her she's out of line or set boundaries with her. They don't respect me, and they don't care about how their treatment of me makes me feel or hurts me. Mom and dad know best! Mom has been trying to be better lately, but it's not enough.\n\nSo I retreated to my room to stay away from them and especially her. I still do. I would let my wife handle the parenting because they for whatever reason respected her. Maybe because she wasn't their flesh and blood? I tried to change and make it a point to be out there with them, but it was still hard and I still had a lot of coping to do. Eventually my wife decided not to back me up anymore, and then later she told me that she didn't love me anymore and wanted a divorce.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzgv0n8",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "couldntyoujust",
"body": "Part 2:\n\nMorally, it was utterly the wrong move on her part. Our son now has to shuttle between two households and I'm not sure if his subconscious picks up on it, but all the shuttling is like he doesn't have a singular \"home\", where he can look and say \"I'm home\". And in all that he's at so much greater risk of all sorts of bad outcomes, even though I'm still in his life and even have him functionally a majority of the time (though we try to make it 50/50; we have an informal custody agreement between ourselves). \n\nShe made a promise to me on our wedding day that we would stick together no matter what, even when one of us was struggling. It really really hurts. She left because her husband was depressed ... probably is depressed, and not able to cope with his overbearing mother, and strong-arming but disengaged and disapproving father. \n\nIt's devastating. You feel like a piece of you was cut off. You're terrified of how far she'll take it with the courts and how much more suffering she'll inflict on you above and beyond the dissolution of a more than a decade long relationship that was intimate in every way possible. You end up an involuntary celibate overnight (not ideologically necessarily, I'm not ideologically one, but in terms of you no longer have a sex partner, and emotionally it will be very difficult to bring yourself to even look for one when you're trying to save your marriage and afterwards when you're grieving for yourself the loss of your marriage). \n\nYou are scared to lose your child, you're scared to lose your wife, you're scared for the financial pain that may be coming that will further weigh you down the rest of your life because of her decision to leave, instead of keeping her vow, and how much harder that's going to make an already very very difficult life where you were already living in poverty. I got lucky in a sense that she just dissolved the marriage and surrendered our storage unit that had a ton of my stuff and a lot of our stuff in it to be auctioned off. Never-mind that I paid for the unit (and we only had it because my parents insisted we keep nothing of ours in their basement that absolutely had the room for at least some of it).\n\nDivorce is so high, that it beggars belief that all these dudes being left were divorced because they're in some way deficient such that she was justified. Not even close. I know that's an \"argument from incredulity\" but you have to be really hateful of men as a sex to think that it's even possible. Men just aren't that bad as a whole. This is why no-fault divorce has been an utter disaster. It needs to stop. We're chewing men up and spitting them out. It's gotta stop. And women need to start taking the bull by the horns instead of leaving their husbands. Yes, it's legal, but no, it's a horrifically destructive and evil act to divorce your man just because he isn't meeting your expectations.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzgv2jj",
"parent_id": "kzgv0n8",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "coming2grips",
"body": "Without assigning blame to either partner or gender involved, the party initiating the legal act of divorce has little to no relation to the party responsible for wrong doing. This is even more so in the modern western world where the prevailing standard is for 'no fault' grounds. \n\nOne thing the stat you misquote does say is that women have less reason (or believe they have less reason) to try and maintain the marriage. \n\nThis is the unintended (?) consequence of the long campaign of education that women don't need to be in bad relationships. Anything defined as bad has become grounds to end the relationship regardless of the reality of the act that has been defined as bad.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzgvbn3",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Greensparow",
"body": "Well to be pedantic it depends on what you determine as a relationship fail. \n\nIf initiating divorce is where the relationship failed then yeah it is mostly women as per your statistics that caused it by initiating.\n\nBut that's really just the simple answer cause it's measurable and very black and white. If you want to dig deeper then you need to know what led to each person filing for divorce, determine who is at fault, or what percentage for each and then make judgment calls regarding blame and truthfulness.\n\nUntil you do that you are pretty much going off emotion and assumptions. So you can say you don't actually know or go by who filed.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzgz2in",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Honore_SG",
"body": "due to cultural and social pressure, at least in my country, women tend to be the ones to initiate the talks about wanting to have a marriage and having a wedding once they have a somewhat longer relationship, they are competitive in that sense of not being the ones on their friend group being last or left out, so its not much about if it is time to get married or are they prepared for that type of long lasting compromise its more about status, since divorced women aren't looked down it doesn't come as a downside to them in all contrary the law rewards them with a pension and the living household even id they have no child, now from the last points I've given you, since they arent doing it out of \"love\" or because they want a live partner they jump to it and once they are in the marriage and realize it wasn't what they actually wanted but already had the big party and ceremony with their friends and important family members now they lose interest, start to have discussions, and well they back out of it since marriage isn't easy and worth the time, most men from my country do not want to marry nor are they interest on marriage since a man that isn't married is just a man nothing more nothing less you have no social pressure nor looked down for being single and they wont gain something on return or finalized said marriage is say that women that initiate divorce are in the majority at fault since they just jump to it without really wanting it at least in my country of course.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzgz5p0",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Commercial_Place9807",
"body": "All a lot of men are perfectly happy to just stay separated and will never get off their ass and start the divorce process. My SIL’s ex cheated on her and then left but then dragged his feet on the actual divorce, leaving all of it up to her.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzh1suc",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "nekro_mantis",
"body": "Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzhvh3h",
"parent_id": "kzh1suc",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Hesitantparrot223",
"body": "You’re an idiot. Change my mind lol",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzh27dl",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "RYNNYMAYNE",
"body": "I think it just shows that woman have higher standards in general and modern women are taking less bs, good for them",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzh5jxv",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "nekro_mantis",
"body": "Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzhmiwp",
"parent_id": "kzh5jxv",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "aurenigma",
"body": "If 80% of divorce is initiated by the woman, then by definition 80% of divorces are marriages being ended/failing because the woman is deciding it to be so.\n\nThere might be many underlying causes, but at the end of the day, those women chose to end the marriage rather than work to fix those causes.\n\nThat's not to say they're wrong to do so, but it is what it is; the marriage failed because they gave up on it. And again, they very well may be right to have given up on it, but you're picking at hairs with the terminology because speaking the literal truth sounds bad to you.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzh70d4",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Calm-Appointment2080",
"body": "60% of divorces have porn as a major factor in why the marriage is ending. \n\nIt not only changes the shape of the brain, but also shrinks it. \nPorn use has a whole host of issues like causing erectile dysfunction to it being as addicting as crack. \n\nAlso men who view porn are 300 time's more likely to cheat. \n\nSo the real question is, why are men ruining their marriages and families for porn?",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzh8cmt",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "nekro_mantis",
"body": "Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzhlt8w",
"parent_id": "kzh8cmt",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "TomKikkert",
"body": "It is an innate animal instinct and has nothing to do with feminism or anything like that.\n\nBRIFFAULT'S LAW: The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.\n\nBoys, if you want to keep your wife, just keep on bringing her shiny colored stones.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzh9gq1",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "nekro_mantis",
"body": "Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzhlmif",
"parent_id": "kzh9gq1",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "luvCinnamonrolls30",
"body": "Definitely look into whether the studies cite the reasons for divorce. I don't remember which one I read, but one study stated that \"lack of commitment\" was one reason, but that's was an umbrella term that covered infidelity, substance abuse, domestic violence etc. Those are extremely serious reasons for seeking divorce.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzh9oc0",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "nekro_mantis",
"body": "Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzhlfwg",
"parent_id": "kzh9oc0",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "432olim",
"body": "Women have higher levels of neuroticism than men and so are more likely to perceive situations negatively. Plus women have an easier time getting sex than men. Men are more willing to just stick around and accept the status quo.\n\nThe divorce rate doesn’t say much about who’s at fault, more so about the differences in average temperament of the sexes.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzh9qtv",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "TechnicianLegal1120",
"body": "Women are 100% responsible for divorce in Lesbian relationships.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzha1i5",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Sakkyoku-Sha",
"body": "I don't know how true that stat is, but if we assume it to be true then the following is true. \n\nAssuming same sex marriages cancel out, then of every 100 divorces, 80 are initiated by women and 20 by men. This would mean that for every 1 divorce initiated by a man there are 4 divorces initiated by women. That is women would be 400% more likely to initiate a divorce than a man. If these are population level statistics, we are talking about potentially tens of millions of divorces here. A sample of potentially tens of millions. \n\nThere are 100% some factors that impact this number, sure men might just be more likely to ignore the paper work, relationship dynamics might be in general less advantageous to women, etc... However I think it's incredibly unlikely that any of these more reasonable explanations are going to add up to the 400% difference between the sexes. \n\nAt the end of the day such a massive difference at such a large scale is likely to indicate that women are in general more likely to become dissatisfied with their marriage then men, and are more likely to want to move to end those relationships than men.\n\nThis again is not to say anything about whether or not that is good or bad, or whether or not women are justified in ending these relationships. But it is to say that the reason these relationships end is officiated more by women than men. That is just what that statistic means.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzhad7x",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "mahaitre",
"body": "Anyway the divorce rate is the biggest of all in Lesbain couples.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzhal3g",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Gwave72",
"body": "Women initiate it more often because they are usually the ones getting spousal support payments and can live with someone else care free. If a guy leaves he’s broke living in his parents basement.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzhc0iq",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "MysticFox05",
"body": "Initiating divorce is a terrible crime to commit. I would say that barring cheating, separation is a much better alternative.",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzhm2k6",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Longjumping_Quail_40",
"body": "These are just views without data support. And data admits different interpretations. Just don’t have view and collect data if you really want to understand social issues.",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzhp1i3",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "GenocideAllRedditors",
"body": "\"Man bad, woman perfect\" reddit moment",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzhsgse",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 5,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Where did I say that. I said it could be some both neither at fault etc",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzhskrv",
"parent_id": "kzhsgse",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "OMenoMale",
"body": "\n\n\n\nIt doesn't matter. They make up their own statistics and ignore anything else. They parrot each other word for word. You can say the sky is blue and they'll pretend you said it's red and then they'll call you stupid for saying it's red. DARVO. \n\n\nRedpill men blame women for anything and everything and don't even bother having an actual conversation. I have yet to engage one without the conversation turning into a constant barage of insults especially once they know I'm a woman. ",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzht6j6",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Rennan-The-Mick",
"body": "Correct",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzhtibu",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Commissar-Dan",
"body": "Women have more support socially for divorce is probably most of it, most guts aren't exactly easy to talk to about these issues meaning they can feel more trapped. \n\nIn terms of cheating men are slightly more likely to forgive cheating and 55% of divorce is initiated by cheating, but it isn't 80%.\n\nIt's also ridiculous to lay divorce as the fault of an entire gender their are a multitude of factors some just and some unjust.",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzhu01m",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "ExhibitionistBrit",
"body": "-“Marriages don’t break up on account of infidelity, it’s just a symptom that something else is wrong with the relationship,”\n\n*When Harry met Sally.*\n\nIt might be a line from a rom com but it’s very true. Just like divorce isn’t the cause of relationships failing, nor is necessarily the affair. Emotional or otherwise.\n\nThe main cause of relationships breaking up is laziness and poor communication in my experience.\n\nPeople start marriages with a commitment to eachother. Lots of words are shared about how they will live their life moving forwards and strive to be the best version of themselves for their partner. So very few actually commit to those words, instead rendering them hollow.\n\nThat’s what then causes the other symptoms. Bitterness, snarkiness, infidelity. Someone essentially lied to get as far as they did in the relationship then tested on their laurels and the other party resents that. \n\nIt’s not the some total of the problem, the second most common reason in my experience that marriages break up is abuse. I’ve seen that abuse drive people to infidelity too. Because the abused is afraid to ask for divorce until they feel like they have a protector. So they stay in a relationship that is failing, due to a trust that was already broken by their partner.\n\nPoint being that divorce numbers are almost meaningless to the cause of a relationship ending. You always have to go back to the root and sometimes it’s impossible to know for anyone but the two in the relationship so judgement should absolutely be withheld.",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzhwoju",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "macone235",
"body": "Well first of all, I want to distinguish between cause and causal fairness, and which one you are specifically assigning to your point. If I go to a store, and I'm stabbed, then I'm responsible for being stabbed because I went to the store. However, most people would not consider that justified. \n\nUltimately, a relationship is two people's expectations and effort coming together. It does not matter what the expectations are - they can be as high and absurd as can be - it is still ultimately men's job to meet those expectations, or else they're responsible for their relationship situation (or lack thereof). However, it is a two way-street. Just like a man is responsible for being chosen or not, a woman is effectively the one making the selection. \n\nFor example, if you are 5-foot and single. Then, there are two conditions being met. 1. Women aren't attracted to the trait, therefore you are single 2. You possess the trait, therefore you are single. If either of these things are untrue, then you are no longer single in a void. So without any morality involved, you would be correct. If your wife woke up one day and said, \"you need to be 8 foot tall by tonight or we're getting a divorce\", and you failed to do so, then in a sense you would still be at fault. There is no greater weight in this equation though. It is simply a matter of two conditional true and false statements.\n\nNow, I assume that because you are using the phrase \"greater than\" that you are alluding to justification rather than simplistic conditionality. Theoretically, you could still be correct though. Simply saying \"women initiate 80% of divorces means they're at fault\" is not logical in isolation, because it lacks information. In this state, you could make the argument that those divorces are justified.\n\nHowever in doing so, you are assuming that men are essentially inferior to be in a relationship with and provide less to the relationship. The issue with this is that it is very easily verifiably untrue when you do bring information into the equation that is typically provided when statements like this are made. While women do provide more in some ways (like cleaning the household), it is overwhelmingly men doing the courting to convince women to mate in our species. This supports the fact that women are objectively more selective. (and I would say most would agree have at least become more selective over the decades) \n\nSo of course, that means men have to meet higher standards, and women are more likely to have a foot out the door as a result. What's even more telling is the fact that gay men have significantly lower divorce rates than lesbian women, which is basically proof that women are more difficult to be in a relationship with (and this is despite studies also showing that women have lower standards for other women).\n\nLet's look at it from a gendered expectation. Why are men essentially seen as unattractive? Typically because they're feminine acting or looking in some way, which is what in essence? *Weakness*. What are women's gendered expectations? Well, women don't really have strict gendered-expectations to be a certain way, but it obviously does skew somewhat feminine. For men though, there is definitely no room for interpretation - you are expected to be masculine., which is what in a sense? Strength, and strength is obviously something that is harder to pursue than weakness. You could argue, \"well, it's 2024 and men are expected to do more traditionally feminine things that are seen as easier like cleaning the house\". Sure, but do they do so at the expense of their masculine expectations? No. They are still primarily expected to be masculine first and foremost while also easing the burden of the feminine gender role to become essentially - even easier. As a result, that makes the masculine role harder, and thus, men have to be even stronger. \n\nThe thing about masculinity is that there is not even a lot of adjustability You can't just go shave your legs, get a boob job, and slap on some make up. Everything has to be earned, and everything that can't be earned is a roll of a dice. Not only that, but a man is only as good as the man next to him. The reality is that most men are not deemed desirable by women. This very fact means that a man has to overcompensate and will still only manage to be settled for, and that is not justified. That is not fair, and this precisely where you're wrong in your argument. Women **are** the reason for why a majority of relationships fail, and that will always occur when they have the leverage because of hypergamy. No matter how good men become - the best men will always be better; and that is precisely why we have a situation in our society where a man will lead, protect, provide, court, romanticize, and even make sure a woman isn't taking care of his household chores in return - and not only will she not even show gratitude, but she'll get upset if you even expect it. So unless you believe men deserve an even worse life than they already have, then no, they are not responsible.",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzhzrkz",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "TunaWiggler",
"body": "Women probably initiate more first because they're most likely to have more to gain. Alimony. Property. The kids. Etc.",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzi2c26",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Grakch",
"body": "I think you’re overlooking the fact that women are more inclined to have algorithmic content focused on empowerment and not needing a man and then that is reinforced within their social circles as an enforcement loop which leads to then wanting to just break away from a relationship rather than work on it. men are more likely to get no relationship related algorithmic content, or get content for therapy, or get redpill content. As a result we see more women constantly striving for something better from each relationship, or wanting something different than their partner does and eventually leaving based on it. a lot of what is happening now is entirely due to the content people receive on their devices or if they don’t use it then their friends might and they are influenced there. \n\n\nIf an individual is using the internet for interpersonal advice it’s going to generate more content based on the advice you are asking and self reinforce the original point. I don’t believe this allows for the individual to fully assess their options and it inhibits them from reviewing alternatives because everything is saying do the original thing you had searched the longest. The world is really discounting the effects of algorithmic profiling. \n\nThis is independent on good or bad actions from the partner more it is that the original act elicits such a emotional response that it is the one that most effort is going be used on and then the individual is going to see data reinforcing that original idea. L",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzi3jck",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Bunnysliders",
"body": "Women benefit from divorce, of course they'd initiate once the time is a right",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzi6ke0",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Redditesgey",
"body": "Lesbians divorce the most. Women are the problem. Women can't stand each other.",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzi6s6w",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "pridejoker",
"body": "There's always at least one person in a bad relationship who thinks everything's totally fine. That's what makes toxic relationships so soul sucking: when only one person's doing all of the work.",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzi78ln",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Vobat",
"body": "There was something I read about how the pill effects women hormones and when they come off it to have a child the hormones change again and women can become off-put with their partners, it could be something as simply as the way their partner smells. Something like 60-70% of women are on the pill I wonder if this might be the reason why divorce rates have increased?",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzi8ccq",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "babieswithrabies63",
"body": "Lesbians have the highest divorce rate. Then cis couples, then gay men with the lowest. The score is posted.",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kziahq6",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "MrBrandopolis",
"body": "What's the point of marriage anymore ",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzias8i",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "BrisbaneDoOver",
"body": "What are the stats in gay male relationships and lesbian relationships?",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzid2rt",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Due_Dirt_2841",
"body": "I think this is just another situation of women being given the brunt of responsibility for \"boys being boys\". Women are told to hide away insecurity and not be a problem when men have friendships with women that get a little too close (and to be clear, I think men and women can be platonic friends, but there are usually signs if more is there), but then if a man cheats, women are often still held responsible because they shouldn't have left their man without supervision with a pretty woman... like he's a child being left with candy and not a full adult person.\n\nThere are so many social constructs in place that defer all responsibility onto women, it's exhausting and frankly is a big reason why I imagine a lot of women are more frequently choosing to stay single these days--men just aren't held accountable, and we are always the scapegoat. But every statistic I've seen states men are more likely to cheat than women are, and they're likely to do it during emotional and/or physically taxing times like pregnancy or cancer. I personally wouldn't (and haven't) stayed in relationships with men who left me high and dry when I needed them most, and I wouldn't expect other women to do anything differently. If that means a higher divorce rate, then who am I to question it?",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzidmn7",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Suitable-Cycle4335",
"body": "I think you misunderstood what their point is. Most of the time I heard about this topic it wasn't about assigning blame but about realizing the tough spot men could be at. Whether it's the man's fault, the woman's, both or none doesn't change much in terms of what you'll have to go through post-divorce.",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzii3g2",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Prophayne_",
"body": "It makes sense to me that the gender with everything to gain in a divorce is the one most inclined to start them. \n\n\nIf I start one, I lose a third of assets that existed before she did, a third of whatever I make for however long the state says for the future, no time with the kids but majority of their expenses. \n\nShe would get to gain all of those things. \n\nI can see the difference in reluctance.",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzijl4b",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "TomKikkert",
"body": "Love the downvotes! Argue with me because by downvoting you prove me right",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzimbgf",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "I didn't down vote you..",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzjb7i9",
"parent_id": "kzimbgf",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "CordCarillo",
"body": "As soon as you used the term \"red-pilled,\" I knew you were gonna be full of shit.\n\nIt's not as black and white as simple fault. There are issues on both sides that lead to a divorce. \n\nThe 80% just shows who is quicker to jump ship at the first sign of trouble and never take responsibility for their contribution toward the break up.",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzinn8r",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "inspire-change",
"body": "i always took this take as who *filed* for divorce, not who made the marriage fail.",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzinorw",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "StacyStatement",
"body": "Women divorce males for being shit men. No one abandons their marriage for fun. Divorce is the man's fault.",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzioer5",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Jebbouy",
"body": "God forbid you take your vows seriously and work through a bad time. God forbid we hold women accountable for the words they vow! Domestic abuse and cheating are good reasons to divorce. Everything else y’all conjure up is retarded. “Unsatisfactory marriage” fuck off",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzir7pm",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "changemyview-ModTeam",
"body": "Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: \n\n> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).\n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzkz450",
"parent_id": "kzir7pm",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "FactChecker25",
"body": ">Often I hear people who are redpilled s\n\nIt’s a really bold assumption to think that anyone that has this belief is “redpilled”. It just immediately screams, “I can’t see past my own politics!”\n\n>Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once.\n\nNo. I don’t know anyone that would be ok if their partner cheated on them.\n\n>So I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc\n\nI agree that we need more information to come to make an accurate judgment.\n\nOne large factor is the fact that women nearly always make out in a divorce. It’s rare that a woman has to see the guy taking the kids or paying the ex husband alimony.",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzitzvj",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Pak1stanMan",
"body": "I’ve never heard that lol",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kziwvvi",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "anonymous-rebel",
"body": "Unpopular opinion: a divorce or a break up isn’t a failure, it’s an acknowledgement that two people aren’t compatible.",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzj2eou",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "somerandomguyanon",
"body": "One reason guys don’t initiate divorce is that divorce disproportionately destroys their life.",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzjagag",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Midokun",
"body": "The divorce rates among lesbian are higher than gays",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzjauby",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Th3DarkSh1n0bi1",
"body": "Actually in most cases it is their fault based on the vows themselves.. Till death do us part.. And most divorce isnt caused by the man breaking vows.. Its financial issues and irreconcilable differences.\n\nBut that being said its just biology mixed with modern society. Females are always more likely to leave males when things are sunshine and rainbows and she gets bored or the guy gets stagnant etc. Not to mention many of the ones getting married in their 30s and 40s are settling for a safe option when they used to date mostly toxic people. That seriously can effect their future relationship stability.\n\nBoth parties play a part in the extremely high divorce rate but currently the primary burden doesnt fall on men. With modern women having equal if not more rights than men and so much freedom they can easily leave. They are even rewarded for it with resources..\n\nWhere as back in the day it wasnt as beneficial for them to leave their men. When you remove the \"need\" for men then its no surprise most would divorce within the standard 3 to 5 year period.. After the butterflies have left.\n\nSecular people shouldnt be getting married in the first place. There is literally no logical reason for it.",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzji8k5",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Individual-Car1161",
"body": "Most divorces cite “irreconcilable differences” which is on both parties. The next most cited fall under similar archetypes",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzjlopm",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "I-mean-maybe",
"body": "I think the rate or of lesbian vs gay male divorce should be enough to show women are the ones leaving relationships at 2x the rate.\n\nYou can take straight and same sex relationships , isolate for sex and effectively get the same rates of departure.\n\nPeople just want to point the finger at men, because its easy to scape goat men. \n\nData doesn’t give a fuck about what you want the narrative to be. People can obviously shape data to match biases but given all the data you will find truth. \n\nIf we had a dataset with a document per divorce that contained, sex , initiator, reasons, investigations of sorts etc. it would be very trivial to put everything in a document store and produce aggregates like rates of violence, infidelity, etc just using a combination of nlp entity extract and fuzzy match logic . Could even ingest into a graph data basis and link persons entities to find the people who ruin the most marriages by name given enough data. I suppose you could write a crawler since divorces are public but what a pain.",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzjm2c8",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "amishdoinks11",
"body": "Obviously not saying it’s women’s fault but lesbian couples also file for divorce at a higher rate than gay (men) couples. Just tells me women won’t settle for a partner who doesn’t meet a certain standard which is okay",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzjmujo",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "IllPen8707",
"body": "No but it does indicate that divorce tends to favour the woman. A man in a toxic marriage is less likely to hit the panic button because he knows he'll get reamed in court, and that's what needs to change.",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzjnefs",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Icy-Statistician6831",
"body": "No, but If those stactics are true, it's probably more often than not because woman doesn't feel attracted anymore. It's not bad or women's \"fault\", but it just shows that they initiate more breakups, lol. It's easier for women to find someone else.",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzjz04s",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Tetsu_Kai",
"body": "It's a case by case thing. You cant make blanket statements about entire groups of people, it will always be false. If you want to know why marriages are failing, you'd have to ask the people who were in those marriages.",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzk8xua",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Comprehensive_Ear586",
"body": "Are straight people okay?",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzkagoz",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "BetterHedgehog2608",
"body": "I think you have a misunderstanding of marriage. Marriage is a vow for life. That may be your confusion if you think marriage is just until your partner does something you don’t like.",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzkc9fc",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Can you show where it must be so. Whether in law or not. The law had deemed marriage to be between man and woman. I see no reason why it can't ever expand",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzkf9zo",
"parent_id": "kzkc9fc",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "InterestingSyrup7139",
"body": "Misogynists will always find a way to find women for everything. Most women file because their husbands are the problem.",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzkcf2a",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Steel_mill_hands",
"body": "This is the precursor to the \"Despite initiating almost 70% of domestic violence incidents, women are not the reason relationship gets physical\" post.",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzkhhvr",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Ok_Job_4555",
"body": "google marriage failures in lesbian relationships",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzl31nu",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "psiloryan",
"body": "Why does this matter at all?",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzl3f60",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "DryEditor7792",
"body": "Think of 10 random examples of males in your life dealing with hardship. Now think of the last ten times you remember females dealing with hardship. Which ones do you remember helping other people during those times.",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzl6zlq",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Sheetmusicman94",
"body": "I don't see a difference between women initiating divorces and women not liking \"unsatisfactory\" marriages. They are the same thing.",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzl973m",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Ok-Crazy-6083",
"body": "The vast majority of divorces are for \"irreconcilable differences\" not infidelity. If you are ending a marriage because it doesn't meet your requirements instead of trying to work on that marriage and make it work? Your fault. You own it.",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzlba5s",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Unionisundefeated",
"body": "Yep, of course it is the logical, normally much more stable person in the relationship. Sure",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzllf2j",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "changemyview-ModTeam",
"body": "Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzln0eu",
"parent_id": "kzllf2j",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "fire_alarmist",
"body": "Its not about who does what, its about who has what to lose. In a divorce, a man stands to lose half of everything he has worked for over a lifetime just by virtue of a woman saying \"meh im not feeling it anymore\". There are ads, social influences , friends and everyone always urging women to not get married or divorce. Women will by and large always be favored for custody, divorce laws in general are absolutely archaic and discriminate against men. So localities are even known for throwing out prenups. The main purpose of them these days is to saddle as much financial responsibility onto the man as legally possible so that the state doesnt have to pick up the tab taking care of the woman/child. Add to that, a man doesnt really see marriage as a ticket to a better life like women do. So there is just so much more to lose for a man, not much to gain by trying to go out and find a replacement so they just stick it out and work harder to keep their current arrangement as long as they can. Meanwhile, there is nothing to lose for a woman, the world keeps telling her she deserves better and husband isnt good enough, the allure of a better, richer husband is always out there. Obviously when its so easy for them, they are much more likely to initiate divorce.",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzloxcb",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Anxious-Count-5799",
"body": "I think most people understand that the point is that women are less likely to try and fix something that is broken when they are so empowered to just leave, take a bunch of money, and find someone else to act as a placeholder. I exaggerate a bit to point out that our culture currently encourages this.",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzlpeye",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "DropAnchor4Columbus",
"body": "Logically speaking, this is a statement that makes sense. Given the statistical imbalance, it's unlikely.",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzlvbxz",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "MR_DIG",
"body": "I know the numbers are closer to 50/50 than 80/20, but you should look at other things that cause divorce other than cheating.\n\nI think the general perception of women initiating divorce stems from relationships where the woman is UNHAPPY, and the man is CONTENT. But due to lack of communication this does not change until she divorces him.",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzm519v",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "adlubmaliki",
"body": "I agree. The main reason relationships fail is because monogamy is unnatural",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzmbbfz",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "More-Ad4663",
"body": "Can you show a resource to me proving that men are more likely to be ok with cheating? I've honestly never heard of that, and in fact find it hard to believe.\n\nWe already know a reason why women could be more likely to initiate divorce. Statistical research shows that women have more confidence that they'll find someone soon compared to men. While it's likely that it's more difficult for most men to replace a lost partner, at least that's what they seem to believe.\n\nThis however doesn't necessarily mean that women are the problem. Ofc, they could be in some individual cases, but not necessarily always or most of the time. More data is required to make a decision regarding this issue. Otherwise, we'd be speculating based on bias.\n\nAlso, divorce isn't necessarily the death of a relationship. It's sometimes the funeral of a long dead relationship. Some right wing people seem to be erroneously thinking that all is well and good for a relationship if people are still together. That's why some of them keep mentioning how divorce rates were so low 3-5 generations ago. What they don't seem to understand however is that being together doesn't necessarily equate to being happy. A marriage isn't necessarily a successful relationship just because it's going on.",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzmcrzr",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Nincompoop6969",
"body": "Show me the source where these statistics come from and then the sources they got it from. Bias is often coated in things like this but people take it as factual. Even the words give reason to be skeptical like \"initiating\"\n\n\nA lot of news is staged and politicians often buy out the media or companies that need to advertise. \n\n\nThere is also other factors and statistics around this too. Like what percentage of marriages are with what genders, what is the length of the marriage difference of these genders, what percentage of woman were what age that initiated these divorces, how was the information gathered, etc",
"date": "2024-04-15",
"id": "kzmus12",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "forpetlja",
"body": "Depends how we perceive marriage. I see it as relict from past made by patriarchal society to keep women under leash. Thus, by women gaining rights and self awareness we kinda do make relationships fail, just by not accepting crap treatment anymore. That aside, reason why marriagies exist and endured for decads war women behaving silent and obedient. Move it out of picture you get what we see today - high divorce rates. Which is actually making me happy. Nobody should suffer abuse.",
"date": "2024-04-15",
"id": "kzn27yv",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "borninsmithers",
"body": "Oh of course not , they wouldn’t take the blame anyways!!",
"date": "2024-04-15",
"id": "kzn9lo4",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Dennis_the_nazbol",
"body": "One datapoint to look at is the higher divorce (and domestic abuse) rate in lesbian relationships. Im not encouraging to draw any anti-gay or anti-woman conclusion from this. Maby women are less toleran of imperfections in a relationship, maby men are more careful when selectig a long term partner, maby there is some other variable im not claiming to know the answer.",
"date": "2024-04-15",
"id": "kznan7j",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "surfingkoala035",
"body": "For better or worse, the chances of a woman being able to survive outside the union of marriage are much higher than they were in the past. Is it the only factor in initiating divorce? Of course not. But not being destroyed financially is a big factor.",
"date": "2024-04-15",
"id": "kznbiq3",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Godiva_pervblinderxx",
"body": "The non abusive/ non cheating reasons women initiate divorce are: because of differences in parenting, because men aren't pulling thier weight domestically, and because of issues with their husband's family (and let's throw male porn addiction/female sexual dissatisfaction in there as well)",
"date": "2024-04-15",
"id": "kzo0s5b",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Shuteye_491",
"body": "[here ya go](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_of_same-sex_couples)",
"date": "2024-04-15",
"id": "kzogn63",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "joyous-at-the-end",
"body": "thanks to all the mothers who put their kids first and got the fuck out of there. ",
"date": "2024-04-15",
"id": "kzov1b3",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "VCthaGoAT",
"body": "Lesbians have higher divorce rates than gay men in same sex relationships in every developed nation. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_of_same-sex_couples#:~:text=As%20a%20result%2C%20the%20corrected,same%20as%20opposite%2Dsex%20couples.\n\nThere was a study done on Tinder and women only Swipe Right around 5% of the time. In comparison, men Swipe Right about 53% of the time. \n\nWomen have much higher expectations and are significantly more picky in choosing a partner. Statistically speaking most of them will not end up with the person they “thought” they deserved.",
"date": "2024-04-15",
"id": "kzp166z",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "AllAmericanProject",
"body": "Its actually a pillar in the redpill community to take statistics and evo-science and present them in a way that supports their narrative often either misunderstanding, misrepresenting or down right lying about said studies",
"date": "2024-04-15",
"id": "kzp5jhn",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Background-Heat740",
"body": "The issue is not that the majority of divorces are initiated by women. The heart of the issue is men seeing videos and posts all over the internet of women leaving supposedly good men for very petty reasons. When that kind of thing is so visible, men question how many of those divorces women initiate are for bad reasons.",
"date": "2024-04-15",
"id": "kzp70p7",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Beseriousforonceno",
"body": "Too late, new generations are already aware.",
"date": "2024-04-15",
"id": "kzpmh3c",
"parent_id": "kzp70p7",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "XXXblackrabbit",
"body": "I don’t feel bad for divorced men that get taken to the cleaners at all in 2024. Imagine willingly letting the government in your love life 😂",
"date": "2024-04-15",
"id": "kzpbvay",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Beseriousforonceno",
"body": "Exactly. The cat is out of the bag. ",
"date": "2024-04-15",
"id": "kzpm19b",
"parent_id": "kzpbvay",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Beseriousforonceno",
"body": "No worries, no one is getting married these days.",
"date": "2024-04-15",
"id": "kzplvof",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "cosmic_uterus",
"body": "Men are less likely to file for divorce because they benefit so much from being married even in little ways. Who’s going to do the domestic labor or schedule their doctors appointments?",
"date": "2024-04-15",
"id": "kzptaz5",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Loud-Condition9827",
"body": "Well more lesbians get divorced then gay men. Idk",
"date": "2024-04-15",
"id": "kzq0cn4",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Impressive_Culture_5",
"body": "Yeah, I’d argue the one initiating the divorce is not the problem",
"date": "2024-04-15",
"id": "kzq1usg",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "mancer187",
"body": "That statistic is basically meaningless without considering the context of those cases. \n\n\nHowever... Lesbian couples are more likely to divorce than hetero couples, and gay men don't come anywhere close. Take from that what you will.",
"date": "2024-04-15",
"id": "kzq2ice",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Fantastic_Camera_467",
"body": "Men try to stay together for the family. Women are more likely to split in general.",
"date": "2024-04-15",
"id": "kzq6il3",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "debunkedyourmom",
"body": "it doesn't matter why divorces happen. The value proposition for the spouse that makes more money is in the shit.",
"date": "2024-04-15",
"id": "kzr4d8o",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "russr",
"body": "No, it's definitely the women...\n\n\"Between 2004 and 2009, the average annual divorce rate for all homosexual marriages was almost 2% (the total rate of divorce over those five years was 11%) Also between 2004 and 2009, lesbian divorce rates were nearly double of those of gay men.\"",
"date": "2024-04-15",
"id": "kzraoiv",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Madman_Micha",
"body": "I mean divorce court, heavily, favored the woman. So they don’t have much to lose. Honestly see the reason to get married.",
"date": "2024-04-15",
"id": "kzrjqov",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "PeanutsNCorn",
"body": "You lost me at women...",
"date": "2024-04-16",
"id": "kzsabp9",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Additional_Slice7606",
"body": "I appreciate this. \n\nWhen I've been in a relationship that's struggling it's usually always been my partner that's worked to make things better. \n\nIf anything, they tried to work on it and I was never taught to do so. \n\nSo, IME, I'd say that a woman leaving likely means she's the type to advocate for her needs and may very well have tried, without success, to fix things.",
"date": "2024-04-16",
"id": "kzslgge",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "West-Rate9357",
"body": "Yeah, look up the lesbian divorce rate, I'll wait.",
"date": "2024-04-16",
"id": "kzsndqc",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Glad-Commercial1748",
"body": "Also perhaps more likely to become unsatisfied in the marriage? 🤷♂️\n\nGrasping at straws here ;) lol",
"date": "2024-04-16",
"id": "kzsqa1m",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "manicdijondreamgirl",
"body": "I just think it’s that men are way more unlikely to actually go and file paperwork lol",
"date": "2024-04-16",
"id": "kzt29ct",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "FeetPicHero",
"body": "Feminism has taught women that men are subhuman and that there is no value in maintaining relationships with them. Men are just an avenue for money via child support/alimony. They want to victimize while being the victim. Equality between genders means men pay them money for some imaginary injustice (think made up things like micro aggressions and pink tax). Feminist think it's an injustice that men find certain traits attractive. They even made their own pejorative, male gaze, to shame men who have a sexuality. For women, the relationships aren't failing. They are doing what they want from them, money, the ability to hurt others, and a victim status.",
"date": "2024-04-16",
"id": "kzt9xkc",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "alohamoira210",
"body": "Seems like a lot of people don't know how to interpret statistics",
"date": "2024-04-16",
"id": "kzt9zsx",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "DelightfulandDarling",
"body": "The person who files is not necessarily the person who initiates the divorce.\n\nMy ex walked out and left me to do all the work (just as he always had). I filed, changed the locks, put the kids in therapy etc because he was busy being a useless drunk.",
"date": "2024-04-16",
"id": "kzuoucf",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "ay-foo",
"body": "What does it mean?",
"date": "2024-04-16",
"id": "kzvjf0l",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Distinct_Face_5796",
"body": "I believe this generation is more hedonistic and selfish than someone born in the 40s as an average. For both genders.",
"date": "2024-04-16",
"id": "kzvngce",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Yoloswaggins89",
"body": "Yes yea it’s always the man’s fault",
"date": "2024-04-16",
"id": "kzw4re4",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Who said its the mansnfault?",
"date": "2024-04-16",
"id": "kzw9fwv",
"parent_id": "kzw4re4",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "sterlinghday",
"body": "I think the cause is rather nuanced my self. No one demographic is to blame, just humans being humans.",
"date": "2024-04-16",
"id": "kzw8ybx",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "mslaffs",
"body": "I thought it was obvious",
"date": "2024-04-16",
"id": "kzwg7zy",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "whoinvitedthesepeopl",
"body": "Women file for divorce because they are done.",
"date": "2024-04-16",
"id": "kzwkm3d",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "BackgroundAd9784",
"body": "Look man, divorce rates are around 60% for hetero marriage, like 20% for gay marriage and around 80% for lesbian marriage. Yes women are the problem. Want a great marriage? Be a man! Go gay!",
"date": "2024-04-16",
"id": "kzwnd6w",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "DownTownDave915",
"body": "Most divorces are not due to cheating, but financial reasons.\n\nSo it can be women are constantly marrying immature financially illiterate morons (seen it a lot) or they are not sticking around when times get hard financially,\n\nEither way it does make them look kinda bad.",
"date": "2024-04-16",
"id": "kzxbp3d",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Yabrosif13",
"body": "No, but it does suggest they are typically the main beneficiaries in a divorce",
"date": "2024-04-16",
"id": "kzxdrl1",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Master-Efficiency261",
"body": "Women being most likely to initiate divorce proceedings just shows that women are the ones 'managing' the relationship status; the odds that a man are happy to live un-divorced but separate because he doesn't want to go through the financial hardship of an actual divorce seems quite high, compared to a woman who likely wants to have the marriage ended so that she can pursue other options without having to chase her ex down for a full and final divorce - which is, ironically, a recurrent theme of several 90's movies like Twister.\n\nI frankly don't know why anyone would extrapolate the people who are most likely to start paperwork to mean that those people are 'the cause' of the relationsihp failing. I'd simply assume they're the more paperwork, ducks in a row oriented type - and since it's statistically women, and it's kind of socially normal for us to joke about how women are dragging men into marriage etc. it kinda makes obvious sense that it's just that women are expected to manage the status of the relationship they have, whereas men can just kinda be in whatever and float through various situationships etc. and it won't matter because no one will judge them. .",
"date": "2024-04-16",
"id": "kzxqbf6",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "tulipfraise",
"body": "As a woman all these stats tell me are that men aren’t worthy or quality partners in the first place and I shouldn’t even try. There’s absolutely no reason women are spending thousands of dollars, upending their families, changing their entire financial and living situation and divorcing from a long time partner for shits and giggles",
"date": "2024-04-17",
"id": "kzyi2wt",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Applepitou3",
"body": "There are waaaaaayy to many factors to think about with this number.",
"date": "2024-04-17",
"id": "kzze5d2",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Necessary_Row_8356",
"body": "Nah the women are probably 100% responsible..😎",
"date": "2024-04-17",
"id": "kzzjp01",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "TheSpiritofFkngCrazy",
"body": "Well, let's take men out of the equation. Lesbian marriages. Then take women out of the equation. Gay marriages. The numbers don't lie fam.",
"date": "2024-04-17",
"id": "l0150go",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Intelligent_Loan_540",
"body": "This stat just reminds me to never get married honestly",
"date": "2024-04-17",
"id": "l01gksd",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Complex-Key-8704",
"body": "Def not. They initiate 80% of marriage so it only follows they'd want to correct their mistake",
"date": "2024-04-17",
"id": "l02tg6h",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Latin_Stallion7777",
"body": "P.S.: Men are statistically somewhat more likely to cheat, and actually far less likely to forgive cheating, whether it's a one-time thing or an ongoing thing. And I agree that infidelity is a justifiable basis for ending a marriage. But that doesn't change the fact that women file more often. Arguably, that still represents them giving up on the marriage more than the other person, even if the husband is screwing up. (And if one partner is not providing adequate sex/affection, which is common, especially from wives, infidelity is a foreseeable result, with the withholding party therefore partly to blame.)\n\nClearly any marriage that a person leaves is unsatisfactory to that person. But people also assume a responsibility to work on a marriage when they get married, and that includes clearly conveying one's unhappiness, the need for specific changes, and the consequences for not changing. So to me the relevant question is whether the person leaving (usually the woman, apparently) is conveying that prior to leaving. That may be an open question, but many men are clearly claiming they're completely/generally blindsided when the women files. And it's unlikely that's always BS, even if it may be sometimes.",
"date": "2024-04-18",
"id": "l057050",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Solicidal",
"body": "As a general rule, anybody claiming to be “redpilled” likes to be believe absolute fucking nonsense based on what makes them feel good. That whole “Beta, Alpha, Sigma” era was basically repackaged star signs for insecure blokes.",
"date": "2024-04-18",
"id": "l05lqh9",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "EmbarrassedMix4182",
"body": "Women initiating divorce more often doesn't solely indicate they're the main reason for marital dissatisfaction. Initiating divorce can reflect women's empowerment to leave unsatisfactory relationships. Reasons for divorce are multifaceted and can't be simplified to gender. Both men and women can be at fault for various issues like infidelity or incompatible life goals. Statistics on cheating show both genders are capable. Moreover, some divorces occur due to mutual agreement or irreconcilable differences, without blame on either side. Using divorce initiation rates to blame women overlooks complex relationship dynamics and individual circumstances, painting an unfair picture of women as the sole cause.",
"date": "2024-04-24",
"id": "l110x4x",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Suspicious_Ferret108",
"body": "Women initiating most divorces doesn't solely reflect their fault in relationships failing. It indicates they're more likely to seek dissolution in unsatisfactory marriages. Reasons for divorce vary; it's not inherently about fault. Men and women both contribute to marital issues. Infidelity, for instance, doesn't automatically assign blame to one gender. Divorce often stems from compatibility issues, evolving priorities, or irreconcilable differences. Focus on understanding the complexities of relationship dynamics rather than assigning blame based on divorce initiation rates. Recognize individual circumstances and mutual responsibilities in relationship breakdowns.",
"date": "2024-05-10",
"id": "l3gala7",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "vaksninus",
"body": "With stats like these, there really is very little point in gettkng marriee. In the first place, you don't need papers to love someone.",
"date": "2024-05-27",
"id": "l5z3wws",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
]
]
| moderate |
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Kman17",
"body": "> are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters?\n\nOne clarification to your view I would like to make is that cheating rates do not indicate who is responsible for relationship failure either.\n\nIt’s hard to get good data here, but this a [good list of polls](https://gitnux.org/cheating-before-marriage-statistics/#:~:text=Do%20men%20or%20women%20cheat,cheating%20than%20women%20before%20marriage.)\n\nInterestingly, it shows that men and women cheat at similar rates in *unmarried* relationships, but men are a lot more prone to cheating when married.\n\nThe reason for this is hopefully obvious: divorce law tends to be much more favorable to women than men.\n\nThus unhappy women are more prone to filing, unhappy men more prone to staying but cheating.\n\nThus you shouldn’t look at cheating as responsible for deterioration of the relationship; the deterioration starts much earlier.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzejm6z",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 19,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "!delta I can see why people think prior to the cheating it is the cause but I think nothing justifies cheating. If you violate your terms whatever that may be in the relationship that's on you",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzejyq0",
"parent_id": "kzejm6z",
"score": 4,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "DeltaBot",
"body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Kman17 ([91∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Kman17)).\n\n^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzek5jw",
"parent_id": "kzejyq0",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
]
| [
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Most-Pop-8963",
"body": "This trend only started after at fault divorce was replaced with no fault divorce in the USA. This shows that there is not sufficient reason such as cheating for divorce leading to the majority of modern divorces. Just simple disagreements.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzeewnj",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 19,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "I mean what are the stats on the reasons why people divorce? Do you have evidence? And if it really is simple disagreements how can we say women are at fault.\n\nIf a woman says she doesn't tolerate x and a man doesn't change is it his fault or hers? I'd argue it's neither. \n\nThis post isn't meant to say men are bad but to counter the ideas women are has",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzef8rs",
"parent_id": "kzeewnj",
"score": 12,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "FaerieStories",
"body": ">So I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening.\n\nI just Googled this and there are a number of articles that would probably give you a better-informed response than most users here could off the top of their head. This one for example:\n\n[https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20220511-why-women-file-for-divorce-more-than-men](https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20220511-why-women-file-for-divorce-more-than-men)\n\n*Women also tend to gain fewer emotional benefits from marriage, which could make single life seem more appealing. While married men experience multiple perks – including living longer and earning more money – women don’t usually benefit from their relationships in the same way. Instead, they bear the brunt of household and child-rearing labour, which can leave working women “overwhelmed and stressed”, says Fort-Martinez.*\n\n*Women also tend to have more close friends than men (in fact, in the US, 15% of men say they have no close friendships at all), meaning they have a better support system both to discuss any marital issues as well as to ease the transition back into single life. It’s also possible these friendships make divorce seem like a more plausible option – research suggests that if a close friend gets divorced, people’s own chances of divorcing rise by 75%.*\n\n*Add this to the fact that women get primary custody of children in the vast majority of divorce cases, so women may feel they have less to lose when filing for divorce compared to men. And in some ways, they are right – evidence shows men’s wellbeing tends to* [*drop much more dramatically*](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5992251/) *immediately following a divorce.*\n\n*But in reality, this effect can be short-lived. “In the short-term after divorce, men’s overall wellbeing decreases more, and they report higher levels of loneliness,” says Kar. “But over time that evens out, and women continue to suffer from more chronic, long-term effects including the loss of home ownership, reduced financial means, and increased stress from life as a single parent.”*",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzeey89",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 306,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "How does that show that women are the cause of the failing relationship?",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzefh9v",
"parent_id": "kzeey89",
"score": 10,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "CostanzaCrimeFamily",
"body": "All it means is that women have more inclination to initiate divorce and give up because they know (with society’s backing) that they have tons of options waiting for them. Or at least that’s what they think. Many women in their 40s for instance get a sobering dose of reality when they are newly single and they aren’t as desired as they were 10 years ago.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzefk0y",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": -4,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Znyper",
"body": "Sorry, u/CostanzaCrimeFamily – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\r\n\r\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). \r\n\r\nIf you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20CostanzaCrimeFamily&message=CostanzaCrimeFamily%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\\[their%20comment\\]\\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/-/kzefk0y/\\)%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. \r\n\r\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzfqbze",
"parent_id": "kzefk0y",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "parkway_parkway",
"body": "I agree that knowing who initiated doesn't tell you who caused the breakdown, which is often due to both parties to a degree. \n\nHowever it's interesting to look at male-male marriages Vs female-female marriages for clues on how different genders behave. \n\n\"[A 2022 study](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_of_same-sex_couples) of Norway, using data up to 2018, found that divorce rates 20 years post-marriage were 5% lower for male-male marriages compared to male-female marriages and were 29% higher for female-female marriages vs female-male marriages.\"\n\n\"A study of marriage dissolution rates in Sweden spanning the years 1995–2012 found that 30% of both male same-sex marriages and heterosexual marriages ended in divorce, whereas the separation rate for female same-sex marriages was 40%\"\n\nAnd then it's also interesting to look at domestic violence in lesbian relationships. \n\n\"[The CDC](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence_in_same-sex_relationships) also stated that 43.8% of lesbian women reported experiencing physical violence, stalking, or rape by their partners. The study notes that, out of those 43.8%, two thirds (67.4%) reported exclusively female perpetrators.\"\n\nIn general seeing that women initiate 80% of divorces and assuming that's evidence of men being at fault is a good example of the [Women are Wonderful](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women-are-wonderful_effect) fallacy.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzefklk",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 95,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Where did I ever assume men were at fault? This post isn't about that. But rather that women are not majority at fault. Some may be at fault. Others not. Sometimes its man. Sometimes its women..",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzefvnf",
"parent_id": "kzefklk",
"score": -5,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "sanschefaudage",
"body": "Divorce rates for lesbians are higher than gays which seems to suggest that women are more likely to leave a mariage than men.\n\n[wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_of_same-sex_couples)\n\nOf course it's not a 100% proof: are lesbian women really behaving the same in relationships than heterosexual women but it's another piece of evidence just like the divorce initiation rate.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzefr4g",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 19,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "alwaysright12",
"body": "No, they're not\n\nLesbians tend to get married far quicker, much younger and have kids more than gay men.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzeglf4",
"parent_id": "kzefr4g",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Irhien",
"body": "If anything, it would superficially seem that when a divorce is initiated by a woman, the reason the marriage failed was the husband. Non-superficially, I think it just means women more often expect their situation to improve with the divorce, which doesn't say much: could be the judges favoring women during divorces, could be that women are more often the victims of abuse, could be something else.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzefxtz",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "ReplyOk6720",
"body": "Sometimes, getting out of an emotionally unhealthy relationship, is an improvement enough. Many a woman leaving with nothing ng than the clothes on her back, in a shelter. Being alive is an \"improvement\". ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzfj0su",
"parent_id": "kzefxtz",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Afghan_Ninja",
"body": "It's only been ~50yrs since women weren't able to get mortgages, own credit cards, etc. cheating is hard to prove legally sans video evidence, and abuse (physical, verbal, & emotional) was also mainstream and not often seen as genuine abuse. It is a fact that women have been suffering through unhealthy relationships for the majority of our nation's existence.\n\nFrom an incel perspective, women not continuing to suffer is their problem and not an issue with the relationship itself. Thus women choosing to pursue divorce is a problem of \"allowing\" women agency. \n\nYou won't get a salient counter view from anyone not espousing a deeply ahistorical and misogynistic worldview. And such ppl aren't worthy of consideration, past condemnation.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzega2c",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 6,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Admirable_Example524",
"body": "Check your timeline 50 years ago was 1974.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzejub1",
"parent_id": "kzega2c",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "INFPneedshelp",
"body": "It also means they are the one to start the paperwork process. ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzegbro",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 17,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "LilSliceRevolution",
"body": "Yeah, filing the paperwork alone means nothing. It could be that the other partner is busier or whatever. The woman could not be the one who wants the divorce but still be the one to file the paperwork.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzeh6yw",
"parent_id": "kzegbro",
"score": 7,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Hour-Beautiful-9804",
"body": "How dare she take umbrage at my bad behaviour?!? Lol. Perps victim blaming - this is the modern mood. People feeing oppressed because they aren’t allowed to oppress the people they traditionally oppress. One spouse behaves badly and the other is supposed to just put up with it. Nope. No. If one spouse cheats and the other doesn’t want to put up with it they are not the cause because they don’t want to see their spouse run around. And frankly if people don’t want to be married for any reason that’s fine. It doesn’t have to be a failure or a tragedy. That’s just religious people running around wanting life to be some opera.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzegizj",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "bsffrn97",
"body": "This is my opinion to. A marriage were one person is being mistreated, or they're both extremely unhappy, is a failure. Divorce would be an improvement in such situations. If someone thinks \"putting up with mistreatment or unhappiness in a marriage just for the sake of not getting a divorce\" makes them a better person, I'd think they were stupid.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzff2zu",
"parent_id": "kzegizj",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "IronSavage3",
"body": "Where are “they” getting that 80% statistic?",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzehem0",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "LongDongSamspon",
"body": "On top of women initiating the vast majority of divorce, the lesbian divorce rate is higher than male female couples divorce rate - and the gay male divorce rate is the lowest of all. \n\nOn top of that studies have shown that those with more estrogen (even amongst women) are more likely to express dissatisfaction with a long term relationship.\n\nSo it’s pretty clear if you’re not living in denial that women are the main reason marriages fail - no men in lesbian marriage yet the divorce rate is even higher. As troubling as it may be for some to admit, all the evidence, statistical, anecdotal, and scientific, points to women simply getting tired of long term relationships more often than men.\n\nNow I don’t necessarily think women cheat or abuse then leave more than men, but personally I do think that more often women have a type of feeling of growing less attracted over time and sometimes don’t really understand why (though often they grow to think of the man as responsible and the media likes to portray it that way). \n\nHow often do you hear divorcing women saying “we’ve” grown apart, or it’s not working. And what they really mean is they’ve lost the feeling and can no longer bear to be touched or with their husband for reasons that aren’t his fault and they can’t help and don’t really understand themselves.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzehhn4",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 43,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Lesbian women are different than straight women who are different from gay men who are different from straight men. Again unless we have the causes of the divorced ... \n\n\"How often do you hear...\" That's anecdotal. I don't hear that all that often. I mostly hear \"I perform all these services on top of work while he does nothing\". but I'm still not gonna base my opinion on my personal experience rather than the stats. \n\nSo you got the stats?",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzei3j6",
"parent_id": "kzehhn4",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "JayNotAtAll",
"body": "I guess it's just a matter of perspective. If you see \"the cause of divorce\" being those who initiate it then you could argue that women are the biggest causes of divorce.\n\nIt is a very simplistic way to view it though as I think the people who just initiate divorce with no reason are in an extreme minority.\n\nA strong argument for why more women initiate divorce is pretty much what you alluded to. Historically, they had very little agency over their lives. Women couldn't have their own bank accounts until the 70s. Just one example over how women just had to deal with the hand they were dealt with. If they had a bad husband, tough shit, just become a mom who drinks wine at 11am.\n\nNow they have more agency over their lives.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzej1yg",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 9,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "ModeMysterious3207",
"body": "And after marrying a guy for security, and a few years of being supported by him, you can divorce him, get a bunch of his assets, and have even more agency",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzf7hz9",
"parent_id": "kzej1yg",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Horror-Collar-5277",
"body": "Woman is supposed to steer relationship. \n\n\nMan is supposed to do the work.\n\n\nSometimes woman steers relationship at the behest of fuck buddies instead of husband.\n\n\nIf we just get more people to hyphenate their names we can surely succeed in making the world more beautiful.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzejjbf",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": -23,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Why are women supposed to steer? Why are men supposed to work. That's just nonsense in my opinion",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzek49h",
"parent_id": "kzejjbf",
"score": 17,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Entropy_Drop",
"body": "Red pills are assholes. They blame single mothers for their offspring shortcoming, while the absent father, who is the one slacking off, is some kind of victim of the system.\nI just can't justify changing your mind into red pill talking points. Its immoral.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzejrxk",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 5,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "rizzla092",
"body": "You can believe they're assholes but it does not negate the fact that single fathers do significantly better than single mothers who raise degenerates in society.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzf1ymg",
"parent_id": "kzejrxk",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "VanillaIsActuallyYum",
"body": "I'm confused by the premise, honestly. If women are initiating the divorce, does that not imply that the OTHER side is the reason for it? If I stop hanging out with friend X, isn't it generally safe to assume it's because friend X was toxic, not that \\*I\\* was toxic?",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzekkr6",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 159,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Nope. You could be a narcissist. And your friend wasn't worshipping you they way you wanted. We have no idea who is at fault.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzekqv3",
"parent_id": "kzekkr6",
"score": 48,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "VenoVlade",
"body": "Women are more likely to end a relationship, because they no longer believe in soulmates. It’s all about the quality of life in the relationship. There’s no desire to suffer or struggle to rebuild or fix the marriage. Just end it and hop on some dick. \n\nMarried guys are much more willing to preserve and maintain. Because they’re dumb enough to believe there is a ‘one’ out there for them and they’ve already found her.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzelqrb",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": -4,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "dustandchaos",
"body": "No, men stay because they’d rather just cheat but maintain their marriage and household because that’s easier than being a single dad and paying child support and alimony. Women don’t care about starting over so we leave.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzfp76w",
"parent_id": "kzelqrb",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "AmbergrisTeaspoon",
"body": "One could postulate that women have more to gain from divorce... Usually.\n\nAnd that fact is also, usually, based on choices that women make.. and then regret... usually.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzem0gv",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": -6,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "dustandchaos",
"body": "Women don’t regret their divorces. Most people don’t.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzfp9s2",
"parent_id": "kzem0gv",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "thecountnotthesaint",
"body": "Why is the divorce rate higher among lesbians compared to gay men? \n\nhttps://www.simpsonlaw.net/blog/2021/06/rate-of-divorce-for-gay-men-lower-than-for-lesbians/",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzem2ud",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 4,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "bsffrn97",
"body": "Imma go ahead and answer your question using your own source.\n\n\"While we see that **66 per cent of same-sex marriages were among females**, nearly three-quarters of same-sex divorces in 2019 were to female couples.\". More lesbian marriages compared to gay marriages to begin with.\n\n\"**Women also tend to get married faster than gay men** and are likelier to have **previously been married**.\" People who have been previously married are more likely to get divorced again, because of age and experience, divorce not feeling as threatening or daunting to go through as the first time etc. \n\n\"**Women do not tolerate marital misconduct** like adultery as much as men do.\" So women are less likely to put up with mistreatment, which is definitely a positive. \n\nAdd these all together, and you get the answer. Hope this helps!",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzfg56f",
"parent_id": "kzem2ud",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "IrrationalDesign",
"body": ">All it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\n\nIt could say 'women are more likely to initiate steps to break off unsatisfying marriages'. It doesn't say anything about staying in the marriage though, as every divorce 'releases' both parties from the marriage at the same time. It's not like men can stay in the marriages without a woman (obviously only talking about heterosexual marriages) ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzenlgw",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Squiiiidwaaard",
"body": "Lesbians have the highest divorce rate. Heteros in the middle. Gays last. \n\nDisproves everything you just said lol",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzennqk",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 8,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Thekurdishprince",
"body": "Based.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzesqpa",
"parent_id": "kzennqk",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "GrayJedi1982",
"body": "What it DOES mean is that marriage is a bad business deal for most men.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzeodbf",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "changemyview-ModTeam",
"body": "Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: \n\n> **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. \n\nComments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and \"written upvotes\" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzff3oh",
"parent_id": "kzeodbf",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "BeamTeam032",
"body": "It's a stat that conservatives use to blame women for why the divorce rate is so high. As if a man would file for divorce after he cheats on her, or goes into a drunken rage and beats the shit out of her. lmao. \n\nIt's like abortion. It's not the mans fault she got preggo, it's her fault for opening her legs. But if it's her fault, she still doesn't get a say because abortion is wrong. lmao. It's like they want to be able to do whatever they want, whenever they want, and not have to be forced to take responsibility. But that's most conservatives I know.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzeogdq",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Znyper",
"body": "Sorry, u/BeamTeam032 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\r\n\r\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). \r\n\r\nIf you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20BeamTeam032&message=BeamTeam032%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\\[their%20comment\\]\\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/-/kzeogdq/\\)%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. \r\n\r\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzfppwy",
"parent_id": "kzeogdq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "That_North_1744",
"body": "Infidelity does not necessarily result in divorce. There are many varying factors that also contribute to the marital breakdown. \nFinances, children, health, abuse, desertion, religion, external family issues, employment changes, priorities differ, etc.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzeowxy",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 4,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "GazBB",
"body": "Post seems to be in bad faith as the premise itself is false.\n\nI've never seen people, amass, at least in recent times, blaming the women for initiating divorces. In fact it's the opposite. Women get plenty of sympathy.\n\nYou often hear that women talk about how they fell out of love or checked out of the relationship **a long time ago** and things were just getting dragged along. And then you have a ton of people blaming the said woman's husband and how he apparently abused her or wasn't a good husband to begin with which led to her falling out of love.\n\nIn fact in reality, unless there's actual abuse, women who checked out of the marriage a long time ago should be 100% blamed for terrible communication. It shows that they never valued the relationship and simply tagged along for the ride.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzeppdl",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "lizcicle",
"body": "It is possible that the underlying issues *were* communicated but the other party refused to acknowledge/address them - in fact, this is *often* presented as the case in one way or another. You did give a pass to \"actual abuse\", so this is more like refusing to pull their weight in re: household tasks/rearing children/financial contribution/physical intimacy.\n\n\"Hey, can you stop cheating on me/frothing with rage when I don't buy you flowers every fifteen minutes? It hurts my feelings. Let's see a counsellor and work through our problems.\" \n\"No lol sounds like a you problem. Fuck your feelings, I'm having fun.\"\n\nI do agree that if the above isn't the case, then the fault lies more on the person who gave up before proposing any kind of solution.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzf02ng",
"parent_id": "kzeppdl",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "BigKadoLBx",
"body": "Women want their cake and eat it too....\n\nOf course they are the reason a majority of marriages don't last. Give up the beaver 🦫 and stop whining all the time good grief...",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzepzkm",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": -2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "changemyview-ModTeam",
"body": "Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: \n\n> **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. \n\nComments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and \"written upvotes\" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzfez4t",
"parent_id": "kzepzkm",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Pale_Zebra8082",
"body": "After reading through several comments and your responses, I believe this will be difficult to resolve because we don’t all share the same sense of what the “reason” for divorce is, primarily. Nor do we all have a shared view of what would constitute a sufficient problem to reasonably warrant initiating a divorce. \n\nIn each case, there are the inciting problems themselves, or claimed problems. Then there is the tolerance for said problem and the commitment to enduring the problem and desire to work through it. Both are factors in the “reason” a divorce happens. \n\nYou are repeatedly referring to the former, while many commenters are referring to the latter. \n\nI agree with you that it’s unclear whether men or women are more likely to be the source of the “problem”. However, it does seem clear that women are much more likely to hit the threshold of giving up on the marriage in the face of the problem than men are. \n\nAs a result, on average, women are contributing to the divorce rate more than men, based solely on that difference. \n\nNow, this does not entail a value judgement on them. One may believe that they are correct to draw the line where they do and think it’s right for them to cut their losses and walk more readily. But that’s a separate question from whether or not they are the “reason” for the divorce.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzeq2tv",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 4,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "MrGraeme",
"body": ">So I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. \n\nThey're happening because women are initiating divorce. The underlying reason isn't relevant because the relationship hasn't *failed* until one or more partners opt out (file for divorce, etc). That's what kills the relationship. Everything up until that point is conflict within relationships.\n\nThe problem you'll face when seeking a *reason* is that *reasons* go the whole way down. Watch:\n\n1. Man divorces woman. Reason: She cheated on him.\n\n2. Woman cheats on man. Reason: He wasn't giving her the attention she needed.\n\n3. Man wasn't giving attention to woman. Reason: She demanded he work two jobs.\n\n4. Woman demanded man work two jobs. Reason: He had to support the family while he stayed home with the kids.\n\nWe could keep going, but the point that I'm making is that you can pick any arbitrary \"reason\" for the breakdown of a relationship. Ultimately, the *reason* isn't what causes the relationship to fail - terminating the relationship is what causes the relationship to fail. \n\n>All it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nUnsatisfactory is not an objective measurement. It's entirely dependent on what the individual person considers unsatisfactory. If *your* definition of unsatisfactory causes you to break up with your partner, then you're the reason the relationship failed. \n\nThe exception to this is conditional relationships, where both parties have a clear and mutually agreed upon understanding of what behaviours or actions will terminate the relationship. Violating a condition in such a relationship could be considered the same as terminating the relationship.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzeqj2w",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "lizcicle",
"body": "Wouldn't your last paragraph be more the rule than the exception, at least in North America/most western countries? Often wedding vows themselves will specifically mention \"faithfulness/constant faith\" (not cheating), \"sickness and health\", \"love and cherish\" (not abusing each other), etc. *Generally* when people step outside marriages or abuse/assault their partners here it's frowned upon and considered a violation of the metaphorical \"contract\" of marriage. Someone opts out of that contract by breaking their word/vow. \n\nI do understand, however, that there are other cultures where fucking around or enduring some form of what we would call abuse in one way or another is considered just part of a marriage, but from what accounts I've heard, the divorce rates in those cases/countries is much lower - ie. the \"contract\" isn't being broken, it's just part of the deal. (disclaimer: haven't checked those stats, anecdotal evidence, i've been wrong at least 2 or 3 times in my life before and it could be the case here)",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzex4yd",
"parent_id": "kzeqj2w",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "IceBlue",
"body": "No idea why you think anyone has any valid argument against this. People who file for divorce are usually the ones that feel aggrieved so it makes no sense to act like they are the reason why the relationship went sour.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzeqjfa",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 4,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "YetteMan",
"body": "For my divorce, I filed the paperwork even though I did not want a divorce because my ex wife moved in with her parents and wouldn’t let me see my daughter for months. I filed specifically to get a court order forcing her to give me access to my daughter and since it was started in my name it stayed that way.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzf2otf",
"parent_id": "kzeqjfa",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Deaf-Leopard1664",
"body": ">All it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\n\n\nAnd all this says is, women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages, they themselves more than possibly ruined/were the a\\*holes in. So when it became unsatisfactory as consequences for their behavior, they naturally wanted out. This could easily make 60% out of your 80%, we never know.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzeqpm2",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "dustandchaos",
"body": "What? People are equally responsible for making unhappy marriages. It is not a sex thing and you all sound like little incels trying to blame one or the other.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzfomdj",
"parent_id": "kzeqpm2",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "underboobfunk",
"body": "It means the opposite as far as I’m concerned.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzer33z",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "changemyview-ModTeam",
"body": "Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: \n\n> **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. \n\nComments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and \"written upvotes\" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzfexat",
"parent_id": "kzer33z",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "jdaddy15911",
"body": "This probably isn’t going to change your view, but I interpreted the data the same way. I thought, “So. That means 80% of men do some dumb shit.”",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzery04",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "ManYonX",
"body": "It makes sense. In general men pay alimony. If I'm in an unhappy marriage and I get money coming in to bail, I'm tsjong the money. Divorce initiating is aligned to economic incentives.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzese6u",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": -3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Sweaty_Condition6293",
"body": "Quite literally, by definition, it is the reason they fail. STFU",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzeszhf",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Icy_Sunlite",
"body": "Not by definition. If a man is actively committing adultery or constantly getting drunk and beating up his wife to the point of near death, for example, he is at least just as much to blame.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzeziea",
"parent_id": "kzeszhf",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "FugakuWickedEyes",
"body": "Divorce happens because both man and woman succumb to desire. It could be another person, another life, etc. The reason women initiate divorce slightly more is because it is more socially acceptable for them to do so. Fortunately I see men and women be equal very soon, which should \n\n\\- decrease marriages\n\n\\- even out who initiates divorces",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzet0az",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Physical-Bus6025",
"body": "It’s not meant to imply they’re in the wrong. When red pillers use that argument, it’s to simply note women 80% of the time end relationships.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzettci",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "MLeek",
"body": "This stat says nothing about who is “at fault” and everything about who does the labour of filing. \n\nAnd that part shouldn’t be at all surprising.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzeumth",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Ok_Deal7813",
"body": "Women, as a collective group, pick partners based on emotion rather than logic, so they partner with dirt bags often, and women are also fickle so they'll quit on a marriage easier. Either way, being divorced is a huge red flag.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzev3qf",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": -4,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "dustandchaos",
"body": "The fuck?",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzfoqr6",
"parent_id": "kzev3qf",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "neverknowwhatsnext",
"body": "Men cheat. Women betray.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzev4ko",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "changemyview-ModTeam",
"body": "Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: \n\n> **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. \n\nComments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and \"written upvotes\" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzfeugb",
"parent_id": "kzev4ko",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Hot-Collection3273",
"body": "This is a pretty popular viewpoint. I thought it was well known and documented that women have better support systems that allow them to leave marriages easier.\n\nHow do you even characterize someone being “at fault” in a divorce on a moral level? \n\nOn some base level, yes the person who files is at fault for the divorce. They made the character judgement and decided to get married, then decided their judgement was wrong and warranted a divorce. \n\nIs it their fault the marriage was shitty enough to warrant the filing? Can’t really determine that based on who filed",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzexess",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Objective_Reality42",
"body": "Women’s tolerance for discomfort in a relationship is significantly lower than men. Their sense of commitment and loyalty to their children’s future and well being is secondary to their own selfish need to see if the grass is greener. \nWomen initiate the divorce due to the court system heavily favoring them, but usually end up less happy than those who fixed their marriage instead of running away. \nA failed relationship is defined by the outcome. Women filing for divorce is evidence of their own failure to work things out rather than put in a legitimate effort to fix things. Therefore women are at fault for the marriage failing the majority of the time. The commitment you make when getting married is to work things through side by side through thick and thin. Filing is an admission you made a promise you can’t live up to.\n\nStay single, kings. Marriage is way too risky.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzexljv",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": -2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Beneficial-Gur-8136",
"body": "Yes. Please stay single.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzf4y20",
"parent_id": "kzexljv",
"score": 6,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Latin_Stallion7777",
"body": "From a strictly logical standpoing, you're correct that women mainly filing for divorce does not necessarily mean they are the reason the relationship/mariage has failed. \n\n\nHowever, it \\*does\\* strongly indicate that women are the ones primaily giving up on failing relationships, instead of sticking around and working on them. (You basically acknowledge as much when you note women being the ones leaving unsatisfactory marriages. I'm guessing most marriages are unsatisfactory at some point to men, which is a big reason many cheat.) \n\n\nThe burden of persuation/proof should therefore be on you, or anyone else claiming men are the primary problem, to explain why men are usually causing relationships to fail, with women simply responding to completly dead marriages when they file for divorce. \n\n\n(Many men are caught completely off guard when their wife leaves. Meaning that even if she was unhappy, she never really articulated it to the guy, or indicated the importance of desired changes.)",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzexrrz",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": -3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "I never claim men are the problem.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzf0es8",
"parent_id": "kzexrrz",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "JohnConradKolos",
"body": "Trying to \"win\" and say \"women are blah blah\" or \"men are blah blah\" doesn't seem overly productive.\n\nBut it might be useful to understand how men and women behave differently in some scenarios.\n\nTwo ideas for understanding this better, so that we all might be a bit more comfortable with how the world is, and so we can be kind to one another.\n\n1. Consider the flip side of your statement: \"women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\" It might be something like: \"men are more likely to stay in unsatisfactory marriages and try to fix them rather than dissolve them.\" But, as you point out, this doesn't give us any information about why the marriage was unsatisfactory in the first place. If men are less likely to initiate divorce, perhaps they have more resilience in the face of some hardship, or perhaps they are just easier to please and find more marriages \"satisfactory\".\n\n2. One option for trying to get a control group would be to look at same sex couples. Do gay couples or lesbian couples get divorced more or less frequently than each other, or heterosexual marriages? \n\nIt appears as if lesbians couples get divorced about twice as frequently as gay couples. \n\nVia this Wikipedia link: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce\\_of\\_same-sex\\_couples#:\\~:text=The%20lesbian%20divorce%20rate%20is,Male%20divorce%20rate%20%3D%207%25).\n\nThe lesbian divorce rate is much higher than the divorce rate between men: in the same period on average 100 women and 45 men divorced per year (i.e., Lesbian divorce rate = 14%, Gay Male divorce rate = 7%).[^(\\[14\\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_of_same-sex_couples#cite_note-14)\n\nSo, while it is possible that women divorce men because of unsatisfactory behavior, other men seem to satisfied. Also, women not only find being married to a man unsatisfactory, they also find being married to a women unsatisfactory.\n\nAgain, the point of any of this should not be to be judgmental, but rather we should seek to be understanding.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzexwj5",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 7,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "bsffrn97",
"body": ">in the same period on average 100 women and 45 men divorced per year\n\nI don't know if this is included in the study you referenced, I don't speak Dutch so I couldn't read it, but it's important to note that lesbian marriages are way more common in the Netherlands than gay marriages.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzfej7l",
"parent_id": "kzexwj5",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "LegacyLivesOnGP",
"body": "I believe cheating between men and women are about equal. There is a perceived economic benefit in many cases for a woman to initiate divorce so if she finds another partner she will formalize the divorce. But if a man finds another partner he will keep it on the low with the reverse occurring: an incentive to remain in the marriage.\n\n\nSo I dont think the right conversation is to determine who to allocate blame to. That just results in a gender war. The discussion is more, who has the most to gain from a divorce? Would men divorce equal to women if they had the same incentives? My theory is yes",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzexxg6",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "KorLee",
"body": "I wholeheartedly agree with your statetment that divorce percentages do not equate to who was at fault. However, I think clarification on what you define as \"fail\" is necessary. \n\nA relationship could be \"failed\" while the two members of the party are still legally married. If 80%, or more accurately 69% of divorces are initiated by women, would it be fair to say that women are the majority of why relationships *end*? \n\nBy approaching it in this light, it not only acknowledges that there may be many reasons to why the relationship \"failed\" in the first place, while also acknowledging the statistic that women initiate divorces substantially higher than men. It's a more neutral way of looking at the statistic as we don't place blame on whos fault the divorce was.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzexyrd",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 5,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Own_Set_6148",
"body": "Most divorces and break ups are not due to cheating. \n\nWomen are more emotional and affected by social pressure. It’s very common for them to make decisions based off of what their female friends and even social media tell them is “right”. \n\nThen you have western culture telling women that they don’t need a man and encouraging separation and independence when they don’t get what they want. \n\nMarriage is a losing proposition for western men.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzey6rj",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Itchy-Status3750",
"body": "Lmfao it’s a losing proposition when you’re a jackass. Women are not more emotional just because you think so.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzfcp2g",
"parent_id": "kzey6rj",
"score": 4,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Terrible_Length007",
"body": "Well when generally the man will lose much more than the women in the divorce of course they are more hesitant.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzeyf0t",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "bad-brains13",
"body": "Recent data provided by the mental health community reports that individuals or couples seeking help due infidelity, nearly 70% of the infidelity was committed by the female within heterosexual relationships.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzeykl8",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "bsffrn97",
"body": "Source?",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzfbnrc",
"parent_id": "kzeykl8",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "thegreatmaster7051",
"body": "Aren't lesbians the most likely to get divorced?",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzeywcg",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 4,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Happy_Weakness_1144",
"body": "I think your proposition can be disproved pretty simply, actually.\n\nYour position presumes a rational, reasonable, suite of standards and if those aren't met, she ends the marriage.\n\nThat's a tautology. You can't assume that the standards are rational, or reasonable.\n\nThe fault for someone failing to meet a standard can be because of BOTH parties. One can fail to meet reasonable standards, and another can set standards most people cannot meet.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzez5wq",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 22,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "I literally mentioned that. The fault can be the woman the man or neither",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzf03mm",
"parent_id": "kzez5wq",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "bad-brains13",
"body": "Although I’m not entirely sure how accurate the numbers are, it’s widely reported that lesbian marriages end in divorce almost most twice as often as heterosexual marriages.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzezjz6",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Fantactic1",
"body": "The 80% stats aren’t necessarily to prove who broke the relationship (if it’s mostly one person). \n\nRather, it’s to prove the point that women can feel confident they’ll be getting the better end of the deal in divorce proceedings.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzezpf7",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "goldyacht",
"body": "Well initiating divorce imo is the reason for the relationship failing, as once you’re at that point it’s likely over. It’s also easier for women to divorce as they are less likely come out on the losing end if you look at it this way. \n\nYears ago if a women with kids divorced they probably would have had it pretty rough but that’s not the case anymore. Now more than likely they will get the kids, half or more of family assets, child support or alimony etc. Compared to men who will likely lose their kids, half their assets and still have to contribute financially to a partner who they are no longer with. It’s not really a great deal for men. \n\nRelationships work because both parties benefit but after marriage for a man it’s unlikely he will be in a great spot after a divorce especially if kids are involved. A lot of women also have better support systems than men and will no longer have to deal with things like housework for a husband which is an added benefit as most women will probably be doing the brunt of it. \n\nWhile I don’t think the sole reason is always on women, I do think they are in a lot better position to leave marriage then most men so they will likely take that option more times than men who probably believe their life will get worse whether the relationship is greatest or not.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzf25kr",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Turbulent_Emu_637",
"body": "\"to have and to hold from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, until we are parted by death. This is my solemn vow.\" \\*unless of course I change my mind. no big. - 80% of women?",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzf2bv4",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Have you looked through the peoples vow and if it includes till death do we part?",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzf2ncd",
"parent_id": "kzf2bv4",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "meadowbelle",
"body": "The talking point re: women initiring divorce is simply to attempt to shame women for having a backbone and leaving. It's not often mentioned that women will do this, even at great financial cost and knowing they'll need to do most of the childcare solo, which says to me that the situation they are in is pretty damn bad",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzf2if1",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "lumberjack_jeff",
"body": "Perhaps not, but it is strong evidence that contrary to popular opinion, women don't think they are harmed by divorce as much as men do.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzf2iqf",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Knave7575",
"body": "Women initiate divorces because they have the most the gain. The disparity reflects the unfairness of the family law system rather than who is to “blame”. \n\nA competent mother who initiates a divorce will, at worst, get the kids half the time. At best, she walks away with the kids and child support, and is free to remarry. \n\nA competent father at best will get the kids half the time (unless the mother is an epic screwup). Even worse, the father has a reasonable chance of losing the kids entirely, which is emotionally and financially devastating. \n\nIf either parent was just as likely to end up with the kids, divorces would probably be equally initiated by both men and women.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzf2mck",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "bsffrn97",
"body": ">A competent mother who initiates a divorce will, at worst, get the kids half the time.\n\nCorrection, [will at worst be murdered.](https://vawnet.org/sc/scope-problem-intimate-partner-homicide-statistics)",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzfbjo4",
"parent_id": "kzf2mck",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Flimsy_Dimension_958",
"body": "My husband wanted me to do all the work for the divorce. He didn't want to be with me but didn't want to divorce?? So I get it. In my experience they want to be seen as \"See! I tried everything and she still left\"",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzf2sb3",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 4,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "MzFrazzle",
"body": "When I finally got the divorce done my ex said \"whew, that was a mission!\"\n\nFOR WHOM????? I did all the paperwork, went to the sheriff of the court twice (my ex moved to a new district), couriered the paperwork myself between the court departments, went to court twice (alone). \n\nMy ex's tag line was \"I was going to do that\" - especially when the dishes were growing blue mould by the time I cracked and did them. Getting a dishwasher did not improve the situation.",
"date": "2024-04-15",
"id": "kzncajl",
"parent_id": "kzf2sb3",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "ilivalkyw",
"body": "No fault divorces are the reason. There is financial gain to be had by wrecking a marriage and then walking away from it. A woman can cheat, leave her husband, and take all his stuff...and kids. So, lots do.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzf38jh",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "rudster",
"body": "I don't think even your cheating point would answer the question. A lot of marriages have dead bedrooms. Does a partner who \"cheats\" on their spouse who refused sex for a year, because that partner smells bad to them, because the other partner is on medication, because their partner because because...\n\nPoint being people are complicated, and there's no simple stat that can assign fault. \n\nThere are some hints that can guide one's intuition. Like what happens to the divorce rate after certain events, like sudden change of income, medical diagnosis, etc",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzf3j5r",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "InterestMost4326",
"body": "No, it means women are more likely to consider a marriage unsatisfactory on an earlier part of its decline than men. And more likely to consider even a marriage whose quality is stagnant, unsatisfactory.\n\nSo if a marriage is declining, on average the woman will sound the alarm earlier than the man.\n\nThe woman isn't right or wrong, women are just naturally more sensitive to and aware of negative things than men, because they're more vulnerable. The psychological research bears this out.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzf3vfq",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "claratheresa",
"body": "Why would men ever file? They would lose all the benefits of marriage and would have to split assets. By forcing it on her to file after her tolerating his shitty behavior he can stall and play the victim.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzf40gp",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "die_eating",
"body": "It takes two to tango. ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzf443f",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Ansuz07",
"body": "Sorry, u/die_eating – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\r\n\r\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). \r\n\r\nIf you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20die_eating&message=die_eating%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\\[their%20comment\\]\\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/-/kzf443f/\\)%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. \r\n\r\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
"date": "2024-04-15",
"id": "kzonpp8",
"parent_id": "kzf443f",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "inkstickart2017",
"body": "Uh, why do you want to change your view?",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzf4jbt",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "reddituserjl",
"body": "Correlation is not causation, looking at only who initiates divorce means little to nothing about why a divorce happened. Ice cream sales go up with crime, the real reason? People steal more in the summer. Unless you have a source where divorced people are put in a study and then data is analyzed there’s no substance for who and why marriages fail and where the blame is from.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzf4jlx",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "ShoalsCreek",
"body": "My ex would have rather tried to kill me again for the fourth time than get a divorce. Had to leave in the middle of the night. Best decision for both of us.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzf4zf5",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "nekro_mantis",
"body": "Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzhygjw",
"parent_id": "kzf4zf5",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Curious_Working5706",
"body": "Someone said this to me the other day. Like, they genuinely believe that women are 100% at fault for “ending the marriage” because they have decided to start the proceedings for divorce (usually after something their husbands have done).\n\nThis is like saying that women are at fault for their men going to prison for beating them to near death because *they* decided to dial 911.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzf5kmt",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "ModeMysterious3207",
"body": "> All it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nIn other words, women are more likely to be faithless and abandon their marriages as soon as their husbands aren't useful.\n\n> So I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. \n\nWomen marry for security and safety. Once they are able to provide those for themselves they no longer need a husband.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzf61yi",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": -2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Source.. On useful\n\nAgain source.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzf6dri",
"parent_id": "kzf61yi",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "adw802",
"body": "Women may not be to blame for why a relationship is failing but the statistic does prove that it is overwhelmingly women that are giving up on failing relationships. Not a moral judgement - it could be that some women have very good reason to call it quits.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzf676b",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Purple_Screen3628",
"body": "The demise of a relationship is the fault of both people.. degrees and levels of fault varies. ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzf6lgo",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "ILoveAnAsianBilat",
"body": "Men are not more likely to cheat.. that's a common misconception. Women cheat just as often and they are less likely to get caught. Women are more careful because the financial fallout of cheating is usually more pronounced for them. So that skews the statistics. Women cheat just as often.\n\nAs far as divorce being initiated.. it is true that women initiate a much higher percentage of divorces. Since they cheat as much as men, it seems like you said, they are just less willing to stay in unsatisfactory relationships. Men are more willing to maintain the status quo and keep things they way they are.. despite not being happy. That doesn't mean one party is more at fault than the other. It just means women are more willing to call it quits sooner under the same circumstances than men are. I'm not sure of the psychology behind this.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzf7fez",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Cheating just as often. Citation?\n\nThat said i can agree fault is not always one or the other",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzf8guu",
"parent_id": "kzf7fez",
"score": 6,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Smergmerg432",
"body": "I feel like red pill can swap any thing around. If they’re the ones who finally get fed up enough to divorce, it sounds like men are the ones who keep messing up. (Obviously, not true all round, but failing to see the logic beyond victim blaming)",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzf7ty2",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "linqingfeng810",
"body": "While it's true that women initiate the majority of divorces, this statistic alone doesn't explain the complexities behind the reasons for relationship breakdowns. It's important to consider the social, emotional, and financial factors that contribute to such decisions. Often, women may face societal pressures or have less financial independence, which can delay the decision to initiate divorce even when the relationship is already failing. Additionally, the initiation of divorce does not necessarily imply fault or blame on one party; it could simply be an acknowledgment that the relationship is no longer sustainable for both individuals involved.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzf8jmn",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "popobono",
"body": "Read your own post\n\n>All it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages \n\nYou just disproved your own belief using the exact argument you’re trying to disprove. You said women are unsatisfied easier thus they leave more. This is the general redpill argument on why women are at fault, because they are portrayed as being “eternally incapable of being satisfied”",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzf9jn7",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 4,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Prestigious-Phase131",
"body": "They didn't say women are more likely to not be satisfied, they said they're more likely to end the marriage when unsatisfied.",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzj7szm",
"parent_id": "kzf9jn7",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "supastyles",
"body": "Your CMV uses a statistic at odds with your \"view\", then uses hypothetical anecdotal scenarios to back up your \"view\".\nThen ask for empirical data to convince you!?\n\nYour \"view\" is a baseless opinion that you are asking anyone to sway you. \n\nYou started this conversation and brought up *A* stat and provided 0 actual reasons why it is wrong, or why your view is right. \n\n\nI'm definitely not a red pill but that's Just Lazy! (You're starting out by making them look good, 😔)",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzfa78u",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Salty_Sky5744",
"body": "If anything I’d say this is proof that they’re usually not the problem.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzfc5pu",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "thapussypatrol",
"body": "Hypergamy dictates that women will have a higher tendency in the current age to separate from their partners (current age = women now have equal economic status yet more than equal access to sex/relationships); men aren't hypergamous; they're not even necessarily more infidelious because cheating as a men is naturally more challenging than cheating as a woman, seeing as men are *way* more likely to say yes to casual (or even more serious yet scandalous) sex than women are in society. Women with hypergamy, being more picky, means that they're also more likely to be less satisfied with what they have compared with men whom tend to be a lot more centred, confident and satisfied with their lives on balance; men tend to find their own happiness whereas women tend to require it provided by their relationship/partner (sorry, that's not that controversial)",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzfch8w",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 4,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "zouss",
"body": "Lol you really are throwing out pseudoscientific bullshit like it's proven fact. \"Women are hypergamous and more emotional\" where's your evidence for this bro? For a rational man you don't seem to have much critical thinking ability",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzguhue",
"parent_id": "kzfch8w",
"score": 5,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Electrical_King4147",
"body": "The belief stems from the idea that women hold the power to initiate relationships primarily, since they are the gender who is in higher demand ie men pursue women primarily, women are seen as the prize rather than men as an aggregate. If you look at it from that angle it means that a relationship happens because of a woman's choice, who she chooses for herself, therefor if the relationship fails for whatever reason it is her fault as well since the relationship exists as a result of her choice ie she either picked really badly and had enough, or she picked well and treated that person really badly therefor drove him away. Them starting most divorces means the former of picking badly and then choosing to leave therefor it is ultimately her fault.\n\n \nObviously it's a hyper simplified logic but if you look at it from that perspective then yea ok. If she wanted x, she should have found someone who also wanted x and not y and been clear about what she wanted in a relationship and made sure the other person also wanted that too. Obviously people can lie, and people can also miss signs or be naive.\n\n \nIt's basically placing blame. Sometimes someone is more at fault for something ending than the other person, sometimes it's no ones fault, sometimes its everyones fault. For whatever reason women are the ones who are doing most of the divorcing. I'm assuming guys who don't like marriage or want commitment will avoid it. Maybe there's some guys who are loyal to a fault and getting divorced by trashy wives who scapegoat them, maybe there's some guys who are the misogyny classic trope and as soon as they get married turn into a megadouche and eventually get divorce. Who knows. If you wanna know the intricate details of every situation you need cameras everywhere. It's otherwise anecdote and conjecture.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzfftp1",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "SnooPandas2078",
"body": "I think a lot of people are kind of missing what OP is saying...\n\nThat filing for divorce =/= ruining the relationship.\n\nDamn.\n\nI agree with OP.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzfg2l9",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "RealisticLime8665",
"body": "This is the view of every woman with a cluster B personality disorder.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzfgm4e",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "LucinaIsMyTank",
"body": "That’s a lot of mental gymnastics for that one captain. A better argument would be how women probably are quicker at realizing when relationships are unhealthy due to genetics giving them higher EQ.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzfhnwu",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Organic_Muffin280",
"body": "Women destroy the relationship because they are the more emotionally oriented ones. But men screw up by getting lazy and make women lose their feelings",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzfhpii",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Sc00tzy",
"body": "I bet men would initiate more if they didn’t typically lose half their shit in the process",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzfi6wl",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 5,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "MzFrazzle",
"body": "They 'lose half their shit' because their wives sacrifice their careers, health and earning potential for years raising offspring.",
"date": "2024-04-15",
"id": "kzncfn9",
"parent_id": "kzfi6wl",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Arervia",
"body": "Women get money when they divorce, that's why they do it, the law is rigged for them to initiate divorce.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzfi8ms",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Critical_Sherbet7427",
"body": "80% is a percentage too high",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzfjouo",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "underboobfunk",
"body": "Isn’t it typically the wronged party who files for divorce?",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzfk4yl",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "KGmagic52",
"body": "No. Look up no fault divorce. She files just because \"she's not happy\" anymore.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzgp5ln",
"parent_id": "kzfk4yl",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Naus1987",
"body": "I always figured it was because men initiate relationships. \n\nPeople who initiate always want the relationship more than the receiver. So they’re less likely to call it quits.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzfkrxn",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "GloomyOffice6002",
"body": "Nice display of willful blindness to the fact the social script - for both men AND women - is still written such that men are the pursuers. Women can only \"gatekeep\" to the men who approach their gate. Touch grass.",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzkikpi",
"parent_id": "kzfkrxn",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Sn0fight",
"body": "In my opinion men are much more comfortable staying miserable.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzfm0so",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "jakeofheart",
"body": "Lesbian divorces have a 65% to 75% divorce rate.\n\nIf it’s even worse when you remove men from the equation, then it’s likely that men are not the problem.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzfn62v",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 4,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "youvelookedbetter",
"body": "There are lots of other factors that go into those situations though. You can't actually compare heterosexual marriages and homosexual marriages (which have not been around for that long) in good faith.",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzhm0n2",
"parent_id": "kzfn62v",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Kfrr",
"body": "70%* \n\nIt's still an alarming statistic, especially when you couple it with the fact that 79.9% of custodial parents are women. \n\nStatistically speaking, entering a marriage from a man's perspective means that you have a 40% chance to divorce. Of that 40%, there a 70% chance that it was initiated by the woman and an 80% chance she gets the kids. \n\nRegardless of the *reason* that a y specific marriage might fail, there's always going to be bad eggs that know they're significantly more likely to get the kids if they decide they don't want to be with the man anymore. \n\nTerrifying statistics, especially from a dude's perspective.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzfn9qd",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 4,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "KitchenSchool1189",
"body": "Most of the women I've known are self possessed malcontents. Fortunately for me my wife and her friends are not in that category.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzfnin8",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Digitalanalogue_",
"body": "In lesbian marriages theyre 100%. Soo….",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzfp09o",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "MGT1111",
"body": "Women don't file for divorce in unsatisfsctory marriage but they file for divorce in whatever mariages they are, satisfactory too. They file for divorce because the system aims at favoring women, is set at destroying men, and made it a profitable business for the women. Having divorced the man, they can get his money, take his children, continue to the next man, divorce him and so on while still getting state money. All it shows, it's women having zero commitment to working on their marriage but once the slightest problem has occurred running away and only exploiting the system which is happy in doing so. \n\nEven, in theory the claim was true and women divorce in unsatisfactory marriages, the lack of symmetry only shows the bias in female favour as men have to stay in marriages even when being abused by women, being cheated on by them, exploited, taken advantage and so on. This has nothing to do with redpilled men, oh, no, but it has to do with the attempt of silencing everyone with the claim of them being redpilled which is a common misandrist tactic applied by man hating feminists. The question and subsequently reason of why relationships fail is more pervasive than this statistic but can be attributed to the same source. For men it's simply about risk management and this statistic is just a smal fraction in the big picture and puzzle \n\nIn our world, of course, it is o.k.to blame man for everything, no matter what it is but to criticize women well that's a blasphemy against the holy supreme gender who never does wrong. I actually do not want to change your mind. It's like to ask a racist to stop hating whatever group of people they dislike. The truth is that women file tbe majority of divorces is that women are the most priviliged group of society and can afford it. The ones that can't afford it, don't file for divorce or are unable to do it even if they want. Well, that's upsets you, the break up of the status quo, that someone dares to criticize women too and not only men.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzfqnwy",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Texan2116",
"body": "I wonder if....this has to do with the fact that the women,know they will be able to date pretty soon after?",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzfrwle",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "justtrashtalk",
"body": "too many men openly say they waited until she did. I KNOW some who did. women are, more emotional sure, more emotionally intelligent than men. they know when its over....some men are: I'm not hitting you, not abusing you, not cheating, this is fine. women got a limited time to find a spouse, men can conceive into their 80's.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzfvr5e",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Environmental-Ad5551",
"body": "Men and women are similarly unfaithful, unpleasant, and duplicitous. On the other hand, women are far more likely to be awarded custody in any contested divorce. Thats the real reason: women have less to lose.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzfvrz0",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 5,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "freakydeku",
"body": "men simply give women custody…",
"date": "2024-04-15",
"id": "kznh1zq",
"parent_id": "kzfvrz0",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Old-Sock-9321",
"body": "It may mean they are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages. It may also mean they have a much lower threshold for what they deem an unsatisfactory marriage. The latter could be mean the women are at fault, since marriage is supposed to be through thick and thin.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzfxrtm",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Total_Yankee_Death",
"body": "Across multiple countries lesbian marriages are [substantially more likely to end in divorce](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_of_same-sex_couples#Divorce_rates) than gay male or heterosexual marriages. \n\nThere's a common denominator here and it isn't men.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzfyv65",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 5,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "88NORMAL_J",
"body": "I still haven't seen a decent rebuttal against this point yet",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzgt2tv",
"parent_id": "kzfyv65",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "tulipthegreycat",
"body": "There weren't as many divorces before because women didn't have rights. It is very hard to leave when you can't own property or have your own bank account. Or if the most money you can make is 50% lower than a man's. \n\nWomen initiate divorces because they can and no longer need to put up with mens terrible behaviors. \n\nMen have to catch up on learning how to behave like equal, respectful, loving partners. Many of which weren't raised to be that way. \n\nIn the future, it will become 50/50, but it will take years of society growing and forcing men to behave as equal partners and feel safe to behave as an equal partner without societal ridicule for that to change. Essentially, women's right and the ability to say no to men and provide for themselves instead is shifting faster than the societal shift for men to learn to respect women and treat them as equals in a relationship, and for men to feel safe acting to behave that way without ridicule. \n\nYou can see it in the reason why women leave. And you can see it in the slow shift that it isn't 80% of women initiating anymore. It is still more women than men, but it will take time for society to full shift as new generations of men are raised to treat their spouses as equals. \n\nAnd to be fair, I would like to point out that there are plenty of women who don't treat their partner equally, and have a toxic fake view feminism who think they are feminists, but are really misandrists. And it wouldn't surprise me at all if their husband's left them either. But as of now, there are more men who don't treat their partners right than women stemming from societal misogyny, which is, hopefully, slowly dying away. \n\nBoth women and men cheat. Both women and men can lose their libido. Both women and men can be disrespectful and distant. Both women and men can grow apart and change. But currently, men are more likely to push all the chores and child-rearing onto women, and men are more likely to be looked down on if they are not the bread winner or if they do chores and child-rearing. There's a lot of women power and women empowerment in society fighting misogyny. But there's not many people fighting how misogyny treats men poorly, too- there's needs to be more people fighting for men to feel safe to do traditionally feminine tasks so that when they aren't the breadwinner they don't break down and become assholes because of insecurities. They need to take initiative in maintaining their household with daily tasks and chores without being asked by just using their eyes to see what needs to be done. Neither person should be the one making lists of chores and asking the other to do them. It should be a conversation of all tasks that need to be done, and then you divide them evenly. And you understand that sometimes the other needs help - even if loading the dishwasher isn't your chore, you do it when the other person is sick so they can rest, and they do the same for you when you are sick. Even if someone is sick for a long period, chance are the other person will become sick for a long period at some point in their life too if you live long enough and stay together. Speaking of that, something like 90% (please find actual percentage, I read about it a while back) of men will divorce their wife if she develops a life-threatening illness. \n\nSo my opinion is that it comes down to misogyny within society that leads to men not acting as equal partners within a marriage for many reasons.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzfyvm2",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": -2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "88NORMAL_J",
"body": "When it comes down to it the lesbian divorce rate is twice that of married gay men. There is no way to blame men for that. Women are worse then men at maintaining marriages. It's ok to say that you know. Women have higher pain tolerance then men. It's just differences it's okay for them to be there.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzgv16x",
"parent_id": "kzfyvm2",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "AzureDreamer",
"body": "I think anyone with life experience can attest there are great fabulous reasons for divorce.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzfzni9",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Threash78",
"body": "We don't have to just look at straight couples. There is also the fact that lesbian couples have higher divorce rates than straight couples and straight couples have higher divorce rates than gay male couples. I mean, end of the day it depends on what you mean by \"reason\", if women start the majority of divorces then at it's more basic point they are the reason.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzg31xt",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "DamnColdVampires",
"body": "Alsoooo…if I didn’t take care of anything, nothing would ever have happened! From the beginning to the end of my marriage. So there’s also that.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzg4orv",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Winter_Ad4517",
"body": "If women are not the reason for majority of divorces then a marriage which has only men must have the highest divorces rate and marriages with only women must be the happiest.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzg51f0",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "NYdude777",
"body": "Women initiate at a wildly higher rate because they have alot more to gain. Many States have laws that HIGHLY favor the female monetarily and with custody when kids are involved.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzg5mkp",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "JesseDx",
"body": "It's not that either is more \"at fault\" but that men are more likely to get completely fucked over in divorce court (and thus generally are more hesitant to file). \"Cheaper to keep her\" is the popular refrain, though it's not something I'd ever be willing to endure personally",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzg64bz",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "jasonhn",
"body": "most divorces don't happen due to infidelity but rather a growing divide in what a woman expects from the relationship vs what the man expects and women tend to have much higher expectations.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzg6tqu",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "KGmagic52",
"body": "Women get relationship FOMO more than men.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzgo6e3",
"parent_id": "kzg6tqu",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "sczmrl",
"body": "> All it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nThis is true under the assumption that a marriage alway satisfy both parties in the same way. But a marriage may be unsatisfactory for a woman and not for a man.\n\nOk, so it’s more common for women to find a marriage unsatisfactory with respect to men? No, because this would be true under the assumption that if a man and a woman are in an unsatisfactory marriage they would react in the same way. But it may happen that a man is worried that he may have to pay alimony while the woman may feel it as an incentive to leave.\n\nA stat is just a measure of something and will not describe anything more than that. You need to measure several things to a have an overview of the world.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzg76ve",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "mrdunnigan",
"body": "Well…. First one has to make a distinction between a marriage under God and a “marriage” under the State because the particular OATHS are *radically* different and so the respective *divorces* are just NOT EQUAL.\n\nAfter making this distinction, one can understand *viscerally* why one oath is much harder/more consequential to break than the other, although, the real world “penalties” do not necessarily reflect this metaphysical Reality.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzg84qk",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "changemyview-ModTeam",
"body": "Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzgi0hj",
"parent_id": "kzg84qk",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "y2jeff",
"body": "Yet another popular opinion. Maybe just ignore the redpilled bullshit.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzgcwgz",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "arkstfan",
"body": "The addition of no fault divorce laws reduced suicide rates among women by around 20%. Tracking numbers the drop would occur in a state after the change while neighboring states would not experience such a drop until making divorce easier. \n\nThose changes had no impact on suicide rates among men. \n\nDomestic violence rates also declined as states liberalized divorce. \n\nWhile women do initiate the majority of divorces, I’d say more like three out of five than 80%. In my time in family law it was common in uncontested divorces for the husband to separate or move out (often to the company of his next spouse) and simply give his wife money and expect her to do all the hassle of getting an attorney and filling out paperwork and getting their pre-agreed property and custody settlement approved.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzgcyt3",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 7,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Aim-So-Near",
"body": "Shut up",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzgdrpf",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "anooblol",
"body": "Just to give you a big reason why. \n\nDivorce paperwork is required for custodial arrangements, and the location where the child is considered to be “living”, to determine which school they’re going to. And everything else associated with the children. \n\nWomen tend to be in the driver’s seats, with respect to the children’s issues. \n\nSo even if it’s a 50/50 equal decision, both parties want a divorce. The woman is more likely to be thinking about how to deal with “these sorts of problems”. And “those sorts of problems” require legal paperwork.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzgfkum",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "nekro_mantis",
"body": "Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzhw2gx",
"parent_id": "kzgfkum",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "look_at_the_eyes",
"body": "A woman initiation divorce tells me she, quite literally, takes initiative for action. This tells me she probably took a lot of initiative action inside the relationship as well. For example for a more equal divide of tasks, better communication, trying to motivate their partner to be active in the relationship and be emotionally present etc.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzgft2b",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "nekro_mantis",
"body": "Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzhvxfv",
"parent_id": "kzgft2b",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "wise_potato23",
"body": "I would have to counter it with any country where the divorced women won't take half of the man's shit, or in the relationships where the women are the ones making more, the ratios are flipped, it is expected throughout the world for the man to be the main bread winner, meaning that in divorces, specially in countries where half of the money is split, women always come on top, with more rights to custody, and end up holding a bigger bag than when they started (ofcourse in most cases and not all), specially when this thing has become more and more socially accepted that women would do this.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzgftdc",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "bigedcactushead",
"body": "How do you explain the fact lesbians divorce at twice the rate of gay men!",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzggxkj",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "SchmeckleHoarder",
"body": "Look at woman who won the lottery vs a man. The numbers are fucking crazy for divorce, too crazy to just be a \"coincidence.”",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzghr8o",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "ReplyOk6720",
"body": "What is the saying, all happy families are alike, but each unhappy family is different. I think filing the paperwork means, one gender files the paperwork more than the other. Doesn't mean anything more than that. It doesn't say why. Husband had been cheating on me for years. Running me down verbally to other friends whilw telling me that they didn't like me, and so isolating me. I still loved him. I initially didn't want to even consider divorce. But my friends and therapist encouraged me to file for separation, bc fears he was going to financially destroy me. While he wasnt interested in fixing things, he actually did not want to be divorced. Don't ask me why. I filed citing irreconcilable differences because honestly I just wanted to get through it with the minimum of distress. ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzghsam",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "nekro_mantis",
"body": "Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzhvq4b",
"parent_id": "kzghsam",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "CranberryBauce",
"body": "What's funny is that there was a time not long ago when women couldn't initiate divorces, so too many women stayed with abusive, imbalanced, unhealthy men. They don't have to do that anymore. Women initiate 80% of divorces because a lot of men suck.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzgigqb",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "88NORMAL_J",
"body": "So why would lesbians divorce at twice the rate of gay people?",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzgu5vj",
"parent_id": "kzgigqb",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "itsforwork",
"body": "No. It does mean they are the ones giving up first",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzgjm77",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "AzLibDem",
"body": "[Hoe\\_Math covered this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDhde8MSwBA&t=320s)",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzgllfv",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "jackamackat",
"body": "Your position is not unreasonable but that's a very high percentage. Extremely high. The simplest explanation which requires the least mental gymnastics and rationalization is that women are not as interested in maintaining marriage.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzgn7q1",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "KGmagic52",
"body": "Women initiate 80% of divorces and still looking for men to take the blame. Women are just allergic to accountability.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzgnhlo",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "residential_logic",
"body": "Yes, it is as the law encourages easy, divorce, and women who are the the majority of the filers because of no-fault divorce, nobody is at fault. The women tend to get everything they want.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzgpg4o",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Sometimesmaybegay",
"body": "I can honestly say after watching the older men around me in my life I completely understand why it’s so high. My dad, his friends, my uncles treated their wives like dogshit. They didn’t leave but I would’ve never blamed them if they did. Completely changed my worldview and now I tend to side with women over men even as a dude.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzgpxvn",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "changemyview-ModTeam",
"body": "Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzh4ny1",
"parent_id": "kzgpxvn",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Pale_Kitsune",
"body": "I mean, if someone wants to divorce, there's likely a reason, and that reason often stems from the partner.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzgqks0",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Responsible_Fig8657",
"body": "Have you considered that my ex wife is fucking whore?",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzgrl68",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "JohnnySpoons82",
"body": "All I can say is, in my experience, the person who files for divorce is the one who got fed up with the other ones’ *BULLSHIT*\nSource: trust me bro my ex is a bitch",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzgsedp",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "changemyview-ModTeam",
"body": "Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzh42j9",
"parent_id": "kzgsedp",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "NotYourGa1Friday",
"body": "I initiated my divorce after escaping abuse. He never would have divorced, he was happy to have me stay under his thumb forever. \n\nSo yeah, I initiated the divorce 😂",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzgul4x",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "changemyview-ModTeam",
"body": "Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzh3w4g",
"parent_id": "kzgul4x",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "couldntyoujust",
"body": "Marriage is meant to be a \"for life\" commitment to the other person. And many of these men are being divorced by their wives, not because he's abusive, or had an affair, or anything like that. They're being divorced because the wife is just \"meh, I'm not happy here anymore, my husband means well but he's depressed, stressed out, etc and so I'm bored.\" \n\nNow, I get why that can hurt and stress a woman out so much, but the solution is to work on the marriage, and be honest about feelings, and commit that regardless our feelings, we made a commitment for life, and we're going to work through this together no matter how long it takes. \n\nI think the worst part of all of this is that when a woman divorces her husband like this, she has already spent the last six months, year, several years, secretly grieving the loss of the relationship and letting it go. Meanwhile she still smiles when she sees you, she still kisses you, she may even - like my ex wife - make out with you and have passionate sex with you... and all the while she's grieving the loss of you and the loss of your relationship like you died and she is a widow. Until she's finally reached \"acceptance\" that you are not her husband anymore and she will not be married to you anymore and then when she finally tells you after she's already cut you off emotionally inside herself, only then does she cut you off emotionally from her and force you into the grieving process. Suddenly you go from \"we have our problems but we still love each other\" to \"she left me! WTF!?!?\" \n\nI'm divorced myself. My wife left because she felt like I wasn't a \"partner\" in our marriage and parenting anymore. And there's some truth to that. The reason? I'm struggling with ADHD, Depression, and we lived with my folks (I still do) because we couldn't get ahead enough to buy a house or even afford an apartment and move out. The prices have gotten that ridiculous. \n\nMy parents meanwhile, have their own ideas about what's right and wrong for us to do with regards to parenting and all that. And my mom especially henpecked me every opportunity she got about what I was doing wrong as a parent in just normal interactions with my son; often in front of her. Believe me, I tried to oppose her, and tell her that what she was doing was inappropriate. She was letting us live there, so I was automatically in the wrong. And worse, I'm terrible with verbal self defense and thinking on my feet. \n\nI would always think later about what she had said and how she had won and realized that it was because my brain falls apart when it's afraid and in those moments, it's terrified because on the one hand, I need her to respect me as her grandson's father, and on the other, she has her finger on the button of whether we stay or end up out on the street. So when I might have remembered a point that would have shut her up, I'm not even aware of it in the moment, it only comes to me later when I calm down how she's actually in the wrong and gaslighting me and how she's being a massive hypocrite.\n\nAnd worse than that, my dad is not unwilling to get physically violent with me, though he's only ever spanked or pushed me during my childhood and adolescence. He also had this thing where he goes drill Sargent and lays into me with demoralizing emotional abuse while physically backing me into a corner. It's demoralizing. He will back her up 100% in the moment even if she's terribly in the wrong from any neutral observer's perspective. God forbid I tell her she's out of line or set boundaries with her. They don't respect me, and they don't care about how their treatment of me makes me feel or hurts me. Mom and dad know best! Mom has been trying to be better lately, but it's not enough.\n\nSo I retreated to my room to stay away from them and especially her. I still do. I would let my wife handle the parenting because they for whatever reason respected her. Maybe because she wasn't their flesh and blood? I tried to change and make it a point to be out there with them, but it was still hard and I still had a lot of coping to do. Eventually my wife decided not to back me up anymore, and then later she told me that she didn't love me anymore and wanted a divorce.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzgv0n8",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "couldntyoujust",
"body": "Part 2:\n\nMorally, it was utterly the wrong move on her part. Our son now has to shuttle between two households and I'm not sure if his subconscious picks up on it, but all the shuttling is like he doesn't have a singular \"home\", where he can look and say \"I'm home\". And in all that he's at so much greater risk of all sorts of bad outcomes, even though I'm still in his life and even have him functionally a majority of the time (though we try to make it 50/50; we have an informal custody agreement between ourselves). \n\nShe made a promise to me on our wedding day that we would stick together no matter what, even when one of us was struggling. It really really hurts. She left because her husband was depressed ... probably is depressed, and not able to cope with his overbearing mother, and strong-arming but disengaged and disapproving father. \n\nIt's devastating. You feel like a piece of you was cut off. You're terrified of how far she'll take it with the courts and how much more suffering she'll inflict on you above and beyond the dissolution of a more than a decade long relationship that was intimate in every way possible. You end up an involuntary celibate overnight (not ideologically necessarily, I'm not ideologically one, but in terms of you no longer have a sex partner, and emotionally it will be very difficult to bring yourself to even look for one when you're trying to save your marriage and afterwards when you're grieving for yourself the loss of your marriage). \n\nYou are scared to lose your child, you're scared to lose your wife, you're scared for the financial pain that may be coming that will further weigh you down the rest of your life because of her decision to leave, instead of keeping her vow, and how much harder that's going to make an already very very difficult life where you were already living in poverty. I got lucky in a sense that she just dissolved the marriage and surrendered our storage unit that had a ton of my stuff and a lot of our stuff in it to be auctioned off. Never-mind that I paid for the unit (and we only had it because my parents insisted we keep nothing of ours in their basement that absolutely had the room for at least some of it).\n\nDivorce is so high, that it beggars belief that all these dudes being left were divorced because they're in some way deficient such that she was justified. Not even close. I know that's an \"argument from incredulity\" but you have to be really hateful of men as a sex to think that it's even possible. Men just aren't that bad as a whole. This is why no-fault divorce has been an utter disaster. It needs to stop. We're chewing men up and spitting them out. It's gotta stop. And women need to start taking the bull by the horns instead of leaving their husbands. Yes, it's legal, but no, it's a horrifically destructive and evil act to divorce your man just because he isn't meeting your expectations.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzgv2jj",
"parent_id": "kzgv0n8",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "coming2grips",
"body": "Without assigning blame to either partner or gender involved, the party initiating the legal act of divorce has little to no relation to the party responsible for wrong doing. This is even more so in the modern western world where the prevailing standard is for 'no fault' grounds. \n\nOne thing the stat you misquote does say is that women have less reason (or believe they have less reason) to try and maintain the marriage. \n\nThis is the unintended (?) consequence of the long campaign of education that women don't need to be in bad relationships. Anything defined as bad has become grounds to end the relationship regardless of the reality of the act that has been defined as bad.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzgvbn3",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Greensparow",
"body": "Well to be pedantic it depends on what you determine as a relationship fail. \n\nIf initiating divorce is where the relationship failed then yeah it is mostly women as per your statistics that caused it by initiating.\n\nBut that's really just the simple answer cause it's measurable and very black and white. If you want to dig deeper then you need to know what led to each person filing for divorce, determine who is at fault, or what percentage for each and then make judgment calls regarding blame and truthfulness.\n\nUntil you do that you are pretty much going off emotion and assumptions. So you can say you don't actually know or go by who filed.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzgz2in",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Honore_SG",
"body": "due to cultural and social pressure, at least in my country, women tend to be the ones to initiate the talks about wanting to have a marriage and having a wedding once they have a somewhat longer relationship, they are competitive in that sense of not being the ones on their friend group being last or left out, so its not much about if it is time to get married or are they prepared for that type of long lasting compromise its more about status, since divorced women aren't looked down it doesn't come as a downside to them in all contrary the law rewards them with a pension and the living household even id they have no child, now from the last points I've given you, since they arent doing it out of \"love\" or because they want a live partner they jump to it and once they are in the marriage and realize it wasn't what they actually wanted but already had the big party and ceremony with their friends and important family members now they lose interest, start to have discussions, and well they back out of it since marriage isn't easy and worth the time, most men from my country do not want to marry nor are they interest on marriage since a man that isn't married is just a man nothing more nothing less you have no social pressure nor looked down for being single and they wont gain something on return or finalized said marriage is say that women that initiate divorce are in the majority at fault since they just jump to it without really wanting it at least in my country of course.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzgz5p0",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Commercial_Place9807",
"body": "All a lot of men are perfectly happy to just stay separated and will never get off their ass and start the divorce process. My SIL’s ex cheated on her and then left but then dragged his feet on the actual divorce, leaving all of it up to her.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzh1suc",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "nekro_mantis",
"body": "Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzhvh3h",
"parent_id": "kzh1suc",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Hesitantparrot223",
"body": "You’re an idiot. Change my mind lol",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzh27dl",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "RYNNYMAYNE",
"body": "I think it just shows that woman have higher standards in general and modern women are taking less bs, good for them",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzh5jxv",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "nekro_mantis",
"body": "Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzhmiwp",
"parent_id": "kzh5jxv",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "aurenigma",
"body": "If 80% of divorce is initiated by the woman, then by definition 80% of divorces are marriages being ended/failing because the woman is deciding it to be so.\n\nThere might be many underlying causes, but at the end of the day, those women chose to end the marriage rather than work to fix those causes.\n\nThat's not to say they're wrong to do so, but it is what it is; the marriage failed because they gave up on it. And again, they very well may be right to have given up on it, but you're picking at hairs with the terminology because speaking the literal truth sounds bad to you.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzh70d4",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Calm-Appointment2080",
"body": "60% of divorces have porn as a major factor in why the marriage is ending. \n\nIt not only changes the shape of the brain, but also shrinks it. \nPorn use has a whole host of issues like causing erectile dysfunction to it being as addicting as crack. \n\nAlso men who view porn are 300 time's more likely to cheat. \n\nSo the real question is, why are men ruining their marriages and families for porn?",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzh8cmt",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "nekro_mantis",
"body": "Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzhlt8w",
"parent_id": "kzh8cmt",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "TomKikkert",
"body": "It is an innate animal instinct and has nothing to do with feminism or anything like that.\n\nBRIFFAULT'S LAW: The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.\n\nBoys, if you want to keep your wife, just keep on bringing her shiny colored stones.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzh9gq1",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "nekro_mantis",
"body": "Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzhlmif",
"parent_id": "kzh9gq1",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "luvCinnamonrolls30",
"body": "Definitely look into whether the studies cite the reasons for divorce. I don't remember which one I read, but one study stated that \"lack of commitment\" was one reason, but that's was an umbrella term that covered infidelity, substance abuse, domestic violence etc. Those are extremely serious reasons for seeking divorce.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzh9oc0",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "nekro_mantis",
"body": "Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzhlfwg",
"parent_id": "kzh9oc0",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "432olim",
"body": "Women have higher levels of neuroticism than men and so are more likely to perceive situations negatively. Plus women have an easier time getting sex than men. Men are more willing to just stick around and accept the status quo.\n\nThe divorce rate doesn’t say much about who’s at fault, more so about the differences in average temperament of the sexes.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzh9qtv",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "TechnicianLegal1120",
"body": "Women are 100% responsible for divorce in Lesbian relationships.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzha1i5",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Sakkyoku-Sha",
"body": "I don't know how true that stat is, but if we assume it to be true then the following is true. \n\nAssuming same sex marriages cancel out, then of every 100 divorces, 80 are initiated by women and 20 by men. This would mean that for every 1 divorce initiated by a man there are 4 divorces initiated by women. That is women would be 400% more likely to initiate a divorce than a man. If these are population level statistics, we are talking about potentially tens of millions of divorces here. A sample of potentially tens of millions. \n\nThere are 100% some factors that impact this number, sure men might just be more likely to ignore the paper work, relationship dynamics might be in general less advantageous to women, etc... However I think it's incredibly unlikely that any of these more reasonable explanations are going to add up to the 400% difference between the sexes. \n\nAt the end of the day such a massive difference at such a large scale is likely to indicate that women are in general more likely to become dissatisfied with their marriage then men, and are more likely to want to move to end those relationships than men.\n\nThis again is not to say anything about whether or not that is good or bad, or whether or not women are justified in ending these relationships. But it is to say that the reason these relationships end is officiated more by women than men. That is just what that statistic means.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzhad7x",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "mahaitre",
"body": "Anyway the divorce rate is the biggest of all in Lesbain couples.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzhal3g",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Gwave72",
"body": "Women initiate it more often because they are usually the ones getting spousal support payments and can live with someone else care free. If a guy leaves he’s broke living in his parents basement.",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "kzhc0iq",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "MysticFox05",
"body": "Initiating divorce is a terrible crime to commit. I would say that barring cheating, separation is a much better alternative.",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzhm2k6",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Longjumping_Quail_40",
"body": "These are just views without data support. And data admits different interpretations. Just don’t have view and collect data if you really want to understand social issues.",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzhp1i3",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "GenocideAllRedditors",
"body": "\"Man bad, woman perfect\" reddit moment",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzhsgse",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 5,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Where did I say that. I said it could be some both neither at fault etc",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzhskrv",
"parent_id": "kzhsgse",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "OMenoMale",
"body": "\n\n\n\nIt doesn't matter. They make up their own statistics and ignore anything else. They parrot each other word for word. You can say the sky is blue and they'll pretend you said it's red and then they'll call you stupid for saying it's red. DARVO. \n\n\nRedpill men blame women for anything and everything and don't even bother having an actual conversation. I have yet to engage one without the conversation turning into a constant barage of insults especially once they know I'm a woman. ",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzht6j6",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Rennan-The-Mick",
"body": "Correct",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzhtibu",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Commissar-Dan",
"body": "Women have more support socially for divorce is probably most of it, most guts aren't exactly easy to talk to about these issues meaning they can feel more trapped. \n\nIn terms of cheating men are slightly more likely to forgive cheating and 55% of divorce is initiated by cheating, but it isn't 80%.\n\nIt's also ridiculous to lay divorce as the fault of an entire gender their are a multitude of factors some just and some unjust.",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzhu01m",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "ExhibitionistBrit",
"body": "-“Marriages don’t break up on account of infidelity, it’s just a symptom that something else is wrong with the relationship,”\n\n*When Harry met Sally.*\n\nIt might be a line from a rom com but it’s very true. Just like divorce isn’t the cause of relationships failing, nor is necessarily the affair. Emotional or otherwise.\n\nThe main cause of relationships breaking up is laziness and poor communication in my experience.\n\nPeople start marriages with a commitment to eachother. Lots of words are shared about how they will live their life moving forwards and strive to be the best version of themselves for their partner. So very few actually commit to those words, instead rendering them hollow.\n\nThat’s what then causes the other symptoms. Bitterness, snarkiness, infidelity. Someone essentially lied to get as far as they did in the relationship then tested on their laurels and the other party resents that. \n\nIt’s not the some total of the problem, the second most common reason in my experience that marriages break up is abuse. I’ve seen that abuse drive people to infidelity too. Because the abused is afraid to ask for divorce until they feel like they have a protector. So they stay in a relationship that is failing, due to a trust that was already broken by their partner.\n\nPoint being that divorce numbers are almost meaningless to the cause of a relationship ending. You always have to go back to the root and sometimes it’s impossible to know for anyone but the two in the relationship so judgement should absolutely be withheld.",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzhwoju",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "macone235",
"body": "Well first of all, I want to distinguish between cause and causal fairness, and which one you are specifically assigning to your point. If I go to a store, and I'm stabbed, then I'm responsible for being stabbed because I went to the store. However, most people would not consider that justified. \n\nUltimately, a relationship is two people's expectations and effort coming together. It does not matter what the expectations are - they can be as high and absurd as can be - it is still ultimately men's job to meet those expectations, or else they're responsible for their relationship situation (or lack thereof). However, it is a two way-street. Just like a man is responsible for being chosen or not, a woman is effectively the one making the selection. \n\nFor example, if you are 5-foot and single. Then, there are two conditions being met. 1. Women aren't attracted to the trait, therefore you are single 2. You possess the trait, therefore you are single. If either of these things are untrue, then you are no longer single in a void. So without any morality involved, you would be correct. If your wife woke up one day and said, \"you need to be 8 foot tall by tonight or we're getting a divorce\", and you failed to do so, then in a sense you would still be at fault. There is no greater weight in this equation though. It is simply a matter of two conditional true and false statements.\n\nNow, I assume that because you are using the phrase \"greater than\" that you are alluding to justification rather than simplistic conditionality. Theoretically, you could still be correct though. Simply saying \"women initiate 80% of divorces means they're at fault\" is not logical in isolation, because it lacks information. In this state, you could make the argument that those divorces are justified.\n\nHowever in doing so, you are assuming that men are essentially inferior to be in a relationship with and provide less to the relationship. The issue with this is that it is very easily verifiably untrue when you do bring information into the equation that is typically provided when statements like this are made. While women do provide more in some ways (like cleaning the household), it is overwhelmingly men doing the courting to convince women to mate in our species. This supports the fact that women are objectively more selective. (and I would say most would agree have at least become more selective over the decades) \n\nSo of course, that means men have to meet higher standards, and women are more likely to have a foot out the door as a result. What's even more telling is the fact that gay men have significantly lower divorce rates than lesbian women, which is basically proof that women are more difficult to be in a relationship with (and this is despite studies also showing that women have lower standards for other women).\n\nLet's look at it from a gendered expectation. Why are men essentially seen as unattractive? Typically because they're feminine acting or looking in some way, which is what in essence? *Weakness*. What are women's gendered expectations? Well, women don't really have strict gendered-expectations to be a certain way, but it obviously does skew somewhat feminine. For men though, there is definitely no room for interpretation - you are expected to be masculine., which is what in a sense? Strength, and strength is obviously something that is harder to pursue than weakness. You could argue, \"well, it's 2024 and men are expected to do more traditionally feminine things that are seen as easier like cleaning the house\". Sure, but do they do so at the expense of their masculine expectations? No. They are still primarily expected to be masculine first and foremost while also easing the burden of the feminine gender role to become essentially - even easier. As a result, that makes the masculine role harder, and thus, men have to be even stronger. \n\nThe thing about masculinity is that there is not even a lot of adjustability You can't just go shave your legs, get a boob job, and slap on some make up. Everything has to be earned, and everything that can't be earned is a roll of a dice. Not only that, but a man is only as good as the man next to him. The reality is that most men are not deemed desirable by women. This very fact means that a man has to overcompensate and will still only manage to be settled for, and that is not justified. That is not fair, and this precisely where you're wrong in your argument. Women **are** the reason for why a majority of relationships fail, and that will always occur when they have the leverage because of hypergamy. No matter how good men become - the best men will always be better; and that is precisely why we have a situation in our society where a man will lead, protect, provide, court, romanticize, and even make sure a woman isn't taking care of his household chores in return - and not only will she not even show gratitude, but she'll get upset if you even expect it. So unless you believe men deserve an even worse life than they already have, then no, they are not responsible.",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzhzrkz",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "TunaWiggler",
"body": "Women probably initiate more first because they're most likely to have more to gain. Alimony. Property. The kids. Etc.",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzi2c26",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Grakch",
"body": "I think you’re overlooking the fact that women are more inclined to have algorithmic content focused on empowerment and not needing a man and then that is reinforced within their social circles as an enforcement loop which leads to then wanting to just break away from a relationship rather than work on it. men are more likely to get no relationship related algorithmic content, or get content for therapy, or get redpill content. As a result we see more women constantly striving for something better from each relationship, or wanting something different than their partner does and eventually leaving based on it. a lot of what is happening now is entirely due to the content people receive on their devices or if they don’t use it then their friends might and they are influenced there. \n\n\nIf an individual is using the internet for interpersonal advice it’s going to generate more content based on the advice you are asking and self reinforce the original point. I don’t believe this allows for the individual to fully assess their options and it inhibits them from reviewing alternatives because everything is saying do the original thing you had searched the longest. The world is really discounting the effects of algorithmic profiling. \n\nThis is independent on good or bad actions from the partner more it is that the original act elicits such a emotional response that it is the one that most effort is going be used on and then the individual is going to see data reinforcing that original idea. L",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzi3jck",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Bunnysliders",
"body": "Women benefit from divorce, of course they'd initiate once the time is a right",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzi6ke0",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Redditesgey",
"body": "Lesbians divorce the most. Women are the problem. Women can't stand each other.",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzi6s6w",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "pridejoker",
"body": "There's always at least one person in a bad relationship who thinks everything's totally fine. That's what makes toxic relationships so soul sucking: when only one person's doing all of the work.",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzi78ln",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Vobat",
"body": "There was something I read about how the pill effects women hormones and when they come off it to have a child the hormones change again and women can become off-put with their partners, it could be something as simply as the way their partner smells. Something like 60-70% of women are on the pill I wonder if this might be the reason why divorce rates have increased?",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzi8ccq",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "babieswithrabies63",
"body": "Lesbians have the highest divorce rate. Then cis couples, then gay men with the lowest. The score is posted.",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kziahq6",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "MrBrandopolis",
"body": "What's the point of marriage anymore ",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzias8i",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "BrisbaneDoOver",
"body": "What are the stats in gay male relationships and lesbian relationships?",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzid2rt",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Due_Dirt_2841",
"body": "I think this is just another situation of women being given the brunt of responsibility for \"boys being boys\". Women are told to hide away insecurity and not be a problem when men have friendships with women that get a little too close (and to be clear, I think men and women can be platonic friends, but there are usually signs if more is there), but then if a man cheats, women are often still held responsible because they shouldn't have left their man without supervision with a pretty woman... like he's a child being left with candy and not a full adult person.\n\nThere are so many social constructs in place that defer all responsibility onto women, it's exhausting and frankly is a big reason why I imagine a lot of women are more frequently choosing to stay single these days--men just aren't held accountable, and we are always the scapegoat. But every statistic I've seen states men are more likely to cheat than women are, and they're likely to do it during emotional and/or physically taxing times like pregnancy or cancer. I personally wouldn't (and haven't) stayed in relationships with men who left me high and dry when I needed them most, and I wouldn't expect other women to do anything differently. If that means a higher divorce rate, then who am I to question it?",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzidmn7",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Suitable-Cycle4335",
"body": "I think you misunderstood what their point is. Most of the time I heard about this topic it wasn't about assigning blame but about realizing the tough spot men could be at. Whether it's the man's fault, the woman's, both or none doesn't change much in terms of what you'll have to go through post-divorce.",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzii3g2",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Prophayne_",
"body": "It makes sense to me that the gender with everything to gain in a divorce is the one most inclined to start them. \n\n\nIf I start one, I lose a third of assets that existed before she did, a third of whatever I make for however long the state says for the future, no time with the kids but majority of their expenses. \n\nShe would get to gain all of those things. \n\nI can see the difference in reluctance.",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzijl4b",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "TomKikkert",
"body": "Love the downvotes! Argue with me because by downvoting you prove me right",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzimbgf",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "I didn't down vote you..",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzjb7i9",
"parent_id": "kzimbgf",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "CordCarillo",
"body": "As soon as you used the term \"red-pilled,\" I knew you were gonna be full of shit.\n\nIt's not as black and white as simple fault. There are issues on both sides that lead to a divorce. \n\nThe 80% just shows who is quicker to jump ship at the first sign of trouble and never take responsibility for their contribution toward the break up.",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzinn8r",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "inspire-change",
"body": "i always took this take as who *filed* for divorce, not who made the marriage fail.",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzinorw",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "StacyStatement",
"body": "Women divorce males for being shit men. No one abandons their marriage for fun. Divorce is the man's fault.",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzioer5",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Jebbouy",
"body": "God forbid you take your vows seriously and work through a bad time. God forbid we hold women accountable for the words they vow! Domestic abuse and cheating are good reasons to divorce. Everything else y’all conjure up is retarded. “Unsatisfactory marriage” fuck off",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzir7pm",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "changemyview-ModTeam",
"body": "Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: \n\n> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).\n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzkz450",
"parent_id": "kzir7pm",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "FactChecker25",
"body": ">Often I hear people who are redpilled s\n\nIt’s a really bold assumption to think that anyone that has this belief is “redpilled”. It just immediately screams, “I can’t see past my own politics!”\n\n>Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once.\n\nNo. I don’t know anyone that would be ok if their partner cheated on them.\n\n>So I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc\n\nI agree that we need more information to come to make an accurate judgment.\n\nOne large factor is the fact that women nearly always make out in a divorce. It’s rare that a woman has to see the guy taking the kids or paying the ex husband alimony.",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzitzvj",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Pak1stanMan",
"body": "I’ve never heard that lol",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kziwvvi",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "anonymous-rebel",
"body": "Unpopular opinion: a divorce or a break up isn’t a failure, it’s an acknowledgement that two people aren’t compatible.",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzj2eou",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "somerandomguyanon",
"body": "One reason guys don’t initiate divorce is that divorce disproportionately destroys their life.",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzjagag",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Midokun",
"body": "The divorce rates among lesbian are higher than gays",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzjauby",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Th3DarkSh1n0bi1",
"body": "Actually in most cases it is their fault based on the vows themselves.. Till death do us part.. And most divorce isnt caused by the man breaking vows.. Its financial issues and irreconcilable differences.\n\nBut that being said its just biology mixed with modern society. Females are always more likely to leave males when things are sunshine and rainbows and she gets bored or the guy gets stagnant etc. Not to mention many of the ones getting married in their 30s and 40s are settling for a safe option when they used to date mostly toxic people. That seriously can effect their future relationship stability.\n\nBoth parties play a part in the extremely high divorce rate but currently the primary burden doesnt fall on men. With modern women having equal if not more rights than men and so much freedom they can easily leave. They are even rewarded for it with resources..\n\nWhere as back in the day it wasnt as beneficial for them to leave their men. When you remove the \"need\" for men then its no surprise most would divorce within the standard 3 to 5 year period.. After the butterflies have left.\n\nSecular people shouldnt be getting married in the first place. There is literally no logical reason for it.",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzji8k5",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Individual-Car1161",
"body": "Most divorces cite “irreconcilable differences” which is on both parties. The next most cited fall under similar archetypes",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzjlopm",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "I-mean-maybe",
"body": "I think the rate or of lesbian vs gay male divorce should be enough to show women are the ones leaving relationships at 2x the rate.\n\nYou can take straight and same sex relationships , isolate for sex and effectively get the same rates of departure.\n\nPeople just want to point the finger at men, because its easy to scape goat men. \n\nData doesn’t give a fuck about what you want the narrative to be. People can obviously shape data to match biases but given all the data you will find truth. \n\nIf we had a dataset with a document per divorce that contained, sex , initiator, reasons, investigations of sorts etc. it would be very trivial to put everything in a document store and produce aggregates like rates of violence, infidelity, etc just using a combination of nlp entity extract and fuzzy match logic . Could even ingest into a graph data basis and link persons entities to find the people who ruin the most marriages by name given enough data. I suppose you could write a crawler since divorces are public but what a pain.",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzjm2c8",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "amishdoinks11",
"body": "Obviously not saying it’s women’s fault but lesbian couples also file for divorce at a higher rate than gay (men) couples. Just tells me women won’t settle for a partner who doesn’t meet a certain standard which is okay",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzjmujo",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "IllPen8707",
"body": "No but it does indicate that divorce tends to favour the woman. A man in a toxic marriage is less likely to hit the panic button because he knows he'll get reamed in court, and that's what needs to change.",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzjnefs",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Icy-Statistician6831",
"body": "No, but If those stactics are true, it's probably more often than not because woman doesn't feel attracted anymore. It's not bad or women's \"fault\", but it just shows that they initiate more breakups, lol. It's easier for women to find someone else.",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzjz04s",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Tetsu_Kai",
"body": "It's a case by case thing. You cant make blanket statements about entire groups of people, it will always be false. If you want to know why marriages are failing, you'd have to ask the people who were in those marriages.",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzk8xua",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Comprehensive_Ear586",
"body": "Are straight people okay?",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzkagoz",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "BetterHedgehog2608",
"body": "I think you have a misunderstanding of marriage. Marriage is a vow for life. That may be your confusion if you think marriage is just until your partner does something you don’t like.",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzkc9fc",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Can you show where it must be so. Whether in law or not. The law had deemed marriage to be between man and woman. I see no reason why it can't ever expand",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzkf9zo",
"parent_id": "kzkc9fc",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "InterestingSyrup7139",
"body": "Misogynists will always find a way to find women for everything. Most women file because their husbands are the problem.",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzkcf2a",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Steel_mill_hands",
"body": "This is the precursor to the \"Despite initiating almost 70% of domestic violence incidents, women are not the reason relationship gets physical\" post.",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzkhhvr",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Ok_Job_4555",
"body": "google marriage failures in lesbian relationships",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzl31nu",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "psiloryan",
"body": "Why does this matter at all?",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzl3f60",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "DryEditor7792",
"body": "Think of 10 random examples of males in your life dealing with hardship. Now think of the last ten times you remember females dealing with hardship. Which ones do you remember helping other people during those times.",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzl6zlq",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Sheetmusicman94",
"body": "I don't see a difference between women initiating divorces and women not liking \"unsatisfactory\" marriages. They are the same thing.",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzl973m",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Ok-Crazy-6083",
"body": "The vast majority of divorces are for \"irreconcilable differences\" not infidelity. If you are ending a marriage because it doesn't meet your requirements instead of trying to work on that marriage and make it work? Your fault. You own it.",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzlba5s",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Unionisundefeated",
"body": "Yep, of course it is the logical, normally much more stable person in the relationship. Sure",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzllf2j",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "changemyview-ModTeam",
"body": "Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzln0eu",
"parent_id": "kzllf2j",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "fire_alarmist",
"body": "Its not about who does what, its about who has what to lose. In a divorce, a man stands to lose half of everything he has worked for over a lifetime just by virtue of a woman saying \"meh im not feeling it anymore\". There are ads, social influences , friends and everyone always urging women to not get married or divorce. Women will by and large always be favored for custody, divorce laws in general are absolutely archaic and discriminate against men. So localities are even known for throwing out prenups. The main purpose of them these days is to saddle as much financial responsibility onto the man as legally possible so that the state doesnt have to pick up the tab taking care of the woman/child. Add to that, a man doesnt really see marriage as a ticket to a better life like women do. So there is just so much more to lose for a man, not much to gain by trying to go out and find a replacement so they just stick it out and work harder to keep their current arrangement as long as they can. Meanwhile, there is nothing to lose for a woman, the world keeps telling her she deserves better and husband isnt good enough, the allure of a better, richer husband is always out there. Obviously when its so easy for them, they are much more likely to initiate divorce.",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzloxcb",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Anxious-Count-5799",
"body": "I think most people understand that the point is that women are less likely to try and fix something that is broken when they are so empowered to just leave, take a bunch of money, and find someone else to act as a placeholder. I exaggerate a bit to point out that our culture currently encourages this.",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzlpeye",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "DropAnchor4Columbus",
"body": "Logically speaking, this is a statement that makes sense. Given the statistical imbalance, it's unlikely.",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzlvbxz",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "MR_DIG",
"body": "I know the numbers are closer to 50/50 than 80/20, but you should look at other things that cause divorce other than cheating.\n\nI think the general perception of women initiating divorce stems from relationships where the woman is UNHAPPY, and the man is CONTENT. But due to lack of communication this does not change until she divorces him.",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzm519v",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "adlubmaliki",
"body": "I agree. The main reason relationships fail is because monogamy is unnatural",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzmbbfz",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "More-Ad4663",
"body": "Can you show a resource to me proving that men are more likely to be ok with cheating? I've honestly never heard of that, and in fact find it hard to believe.\n\nWe already know a reason why women could be more likely to initiate divorce. Statistical research shows that women have more confidence that they'll find someone soon compared to men. While it's likely that it's more difficult for most men to replace a lost partner, at least that's what they seem to believe.\n\nThis however doesn't necessarily mean that women are the problem. Ofc, they could be in some individual cases, but not necessarily always or most of the time. More data is required to make a decision regarding this issue. Otherwise, we'd be speculating based on bias.\n\nAlso, divorce isn't necessarily the death of a relationship. It's sometimes the funeral of a long dead relationship. Some right wing people seem to be erroneously thinking that all is well and good for a relationship if people are still together. That's why some of them keep mentioning how divorce rates were so low 3-5 generations ago. What they don't seem to understand however is that being together doesn't necessarily equate to being happy. A marriage isn't necessarily a successful relationship just because it's going on.",
"date": "2024-04-14",
"id": "kzmcrzr",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Nincompoop6969",
"body": "Show me the source where these statistics come from and then the sources they got it from. Bias is often coated in things like this but people take it as factual. Even the words give reason to be skeptical like \"initiating\"\n\n\nA lot of news is staged and politicians often buy out the media or companies that need to advertise. \n\n\nThere is also other factors and statistics around this too. Like what percentage of marriages are with what genders, what is the length of the marriage difference of these genders, what percentage of woman were what age that initiated these divorces, how was the information gathered, etc",
"date": "2024-04-15",
"id": "kzmus12",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "forpetlja",
"body": "Depends how we perceive marriage. I see it as relict from past made by patriarchal society to keep women under leash. Thus, by women gaining rights and self awareness we kinda do make relationships fail, just by not accepting crap treatment anymore. That aside, reason why marriagies exist and endured for decads war women behaving silent and obedient. Move it out of picture you get what we see today - high divorce rates. Which is actually making me happy. Nobody should suffer abuse.",
"date": "2024-04-15",
"id": "kzn27yv",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "borninsmithers",
"body": "Oh of course not , they wouldn’t take the blame anyways!!",
"date": "2024-04-15",
"id": "kzn9lo4",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Dennis_the_nazbol",
"body": "One datapoint to look at is the higher divorce (and domestic abuse) rate in lesbian relationships. Im not encouraging to draw any anti-gay or anti-woman conclusion from this. Maby women are less toleran of imperfections in a relationship, maby men are more careful when selectig a long term partner, maby there is some other variable im not claiming to know the answer.",
"date": "2024-04-15",
"id": "kznan7j",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "surfingkoala035",
"body": "For better or worse, the chances of a woman being able to survive outside the union of marriage are much higher than they were in the past. Is it the only factor in initiating divorce? Of course not. But not being destroyed financially is a big factor.",
"date": "2024-04-15",
"id": "kznbiq3",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Godiva_pervblinderxx",
"body": "The non abusive/ non cheating reasons women initiate divorce are: because of differences in parenting, because men aren't pulling thier weight domestically, and because of issues with their husband's family (and let's throw male porn addiction/female sexual dissatisfaction in there as well)",
"date": "2024-04-15",
"id": "kzo0s5b",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Shuteye_491",
"body": "[here ya go](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_of_same-sex_couples)",
"date": "2024-04-15",
"id": "kzogn63",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "joyous-at-the-end",
"body": "thanks to all the mothers who put their kids first and got the fuck out of there. ",
"date": "2024-04-15",
"id": "kzov1b3",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "VCthaGoAT",
"body": "Lesbians have higher divorce rates than gay men in same sex relationships in every developed nation. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_of_same-sex_couples#:~:text=As%20a%20result%2C%20the%20corrected,same%20as%20opposite%2Dsex%20couples.\n\nThere was a study done on Tinder and women only Swipe Right around 5% of the time. In comparison, men Swipe Right about 53% of the time. \n\nWomen have much higher expectations and are significantly more picky in choosing a partner. Statistically speaking most of them will not end up with the person they “thought” they deserved.",
"date": "2024-04-15",
"id": "kzp166z",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "AllAmericanProject",
"body": "Its actually a pillar in the redpill community to take statistics and evo-science and present them in a way that supports their narrative often either misunderstanding, misrepresenting or down right lying about said studies",
"date": "2024-04-15",
"id": "kzp5jhn",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Background-Heat740",
"body": "The issue is not that the majority of divorces are initiated by women. The heart of the issue is men seeing videos and posts all over the internet of women leaving supposedly good men for very petty reasons. When that kind of thing is so visible, men question how many of those divorces women initiate are for bad reasons.",
"date": "2024-04-15",
"id": "kzp70p7",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Beseriousforonceno",
"body": "Too late, new generations are already aware.",
"date": "2024-04-15",
"id": "kzpmh3c",
"parent_id": "kzp70p7",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "XXXblackrabbit",
"body": "I don’t feel bad for divorced men that get taken to the cleaners at all in 2024. Imagine willingly letting the government in your love life 😂",
"date": "2024-04-15",
"id": "kzpbvay",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Beseriousforonceno",
"body": "Exactly. The cat is out of the bag. ",
"date": "2024-04-15",
"id": "kzpm19b",
"parent_id": "kzpbvay",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Beseriousforonceno",
"body": "No worries, no one is getting married these days.",
"date": "2024-04-15",
"id": "kzplvof",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "cosmic_uterus",
"body": "Men are less likely to file for divorce because they benefit so much from being married even in little ways. Who’s going to do the domestic labor or schedule their doctors appointments?",
"date": "2024-04-15",
"id": "kzptaz5",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Loud-Condition9827",
"body": "Well more lesbians get divorced then gay men. Idk",
"date": "2024-04-15",
"id": "kzq0cn4",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Impressive_Culture_5",
"body": "Yeah, I’d argue the one initiating the divorce is not the problem",
"date": "2024-04-15",
"id": "kzq1usg",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "mancer187",
"body": "That statistic is basically meaningless without considering the context of those cases. \n\n\nHowever... Lesbian couples are more likely to divorce than hetero couples, and gay men don't come anywhere close. Take from that what you will.",
"date": "2024-04-15",
"id": "kzq2ice",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Fantastic_Camera_467",
"body": "Men try to stay together for the family. Women are more likely to split in general.",
"date": "2024-04-15",
"id": "kzq6il3",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "debunkedyourmom",
"body": "it doesn't matter why divorces happen. The value proposition for the spouse that makes more money is in the shit.",
"date": "2024-04-15",
"id": "kzr4d8o",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "russr",
"body": "No, it's definitely the women...\n\n\"Between 2004 and 2009, the average annual divorce rate for all homosexual marriages was almost 2% (the total rate of divorce over those five years was 11%) Also between 2004 and 2009, lesbian divorce rates were nearly double of those of gay men.\"",
"date": "2024-04-15",
"id": "kzraoiv",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Madman_Micha",
"body": "I mean divorce court, heavily, favored the woman. So they don’t have much to lose. Honestly see the reason to get married.",
"date": "2024-04-15",
"id": "kzrjqov",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "PeanutsNCorn",
"body": "You lost me at women...",
"date": "2024-04-16",
"id": "kzsabp9",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Additional_Slice7606",
"body": "I appreciate this. \n\nWhen I've been in a relationship that's struggling it's usually always been my partner that's worked to make things better. \n\nIf anything, they tried to work on it and I was never taught to do so. \n\nSo, IME, I'd say that a woman leaving likely means she's the type to advocate for her needs and may very well have tried, without success, to fix things.",
"date": "2024-04-16",
"id": "kzslgge",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "West-Rate9357",
"body": "Yeah, look up the lesbian divorce rate, I'll wait.",
"date": "2024-04-16",
"id": "kzsndqc",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Glad-Commercial1748",
"body": "Also perhaps more likely to become unsatisfied in the marriage? 🤷♂️\n\nGrasping at straws here ;) lol",
"date": "2024-04-16",
"id": "kzsqa1m",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "manicdijondreamgirl",
"body": "I just think it’s that men are way more unlikely to actually go and file paperwork lol",
"date": "2024-04-16",
"id": "kzt29ct",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "FeetPicHero",
"body": "Feminism has taught women that men are subhuman and that there is no value in maintaining relationships with them. Men are just an avenue for money via child support/alimony. They want to victimize while being the victim. Equality between genders means men pay them money for some imaginary injustice (think made up things like micro aggressions and pink tax). Feminist think it's an injustice that men find certain traits attractive. They even made their own pejorative, male gaze, to shame men who have a sexuality. For women, the relationships aren't failing. They are doing what they want from them, money, the ability to hurt others, and a victim status.",
"date": "2024-04-16",
"id": "kzt9xkc",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "alohamoira210",
"body": "Seems like a lot of people don't know how to interpret statistics",
"date": "2024-04-16",
"id": "kzt9zsx",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "DelightfulandDarling",
"body": "The person who files is not necessarily the person who initiates the divorce.\n\nMy ex walked out and left me to do all the work (just as he always had). I filed, changed the locks, put the kids in therapy etc because he was busy being a useless drunk.",
"date": "2024-04-16",
"id": "kzuoucf",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "ay-foo",
"body": "What does it mean?",
"date": "2024-04-16",
"id": "kzvjf0l",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Distinct_Face_5796",
"body": "I believe this generation is more hedonistic and selfish than someone born in the 40s as an average. For both genders.",
"date": "2024-04-16",
"id": "kzvngce",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Yoloswaggins89",
"body": "Yes yea it’s always the man’s fault",
"date": "2024-04-16",
"id": "kzw4re4",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Who said its the mansnfault?",
"date": "2024-04-16",
"id": "kzw9fwv",
"parent_id": "kzw4re4",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "sterlinghday",
"body": "I think the cause is rather nuanced my self. No one demographic is to blame, just humans being humans.",
"date": "2024-04-16",
"id": "kzw8ybx",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "mslaffs",
"body": "I thought it was obvious",
"date": "2024-04-16",
"id": "kzwg7zy",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "whoinvitedthesepeopl",
"body": "Women file for divorce because they are done.",
"date": "2024-04-16",
"id": "kzwkm3d",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "BackgroundAd9784",
"body": "Look man, divorce rates are around 60% for hetero marriage, like 20% for gay marriage and around 80% for lesbian marriage. Yes women are the problem. Want a great marriage? Be a man! Go gay!",
"date": "2024-04-16",
"id": "kzwnd6w",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "DownTownDave915",
"body": "Most divorces are not due to cheating, but financial reasons.\n\nSo it can be women are constantly marrying immature financially illiterate morons (seen it a lot) or they are not sticking around when times get hard financially,\n\nEither way it does make them look kinda bad.",
"date": "2024-04-16",
"id": "kzxbp3d",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Yabrosif13",
"body": "No, but it does suggest they are typically the main beneficiaries in a divorce",
"date": "2024-04-16",
"id": "kzxdrl1",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Master-Efficiency261",
"body": "Women being most likely to initiate divorce proceedings just shows that women are the ones 'managing' the relationship status; the odds that a man are happy to live un-divorced but separate because he doesn't want to go through the financial hardship of an actual divorce seems quite high, compared to a woman who likely wants to have the marriage ended so that she can pursue other options without having to chase her ex down for a full and final divorce - which is, ironically, a recurrent theme of several 90's movies like Twister.\n\nI frankly don't know why anyone would extrapolate the people who are most likely to start paperwork to mean that those people are 'the cause' of the relationsihp failing. I'd simply assume they're the more paperwork, ducks in a row oriented type - and since it's statistically women, and it's kind of socially normal for us to joke about how women are dragging men into marriage etc. it kinda makes obvious sense that it's just that women are expected to manage the status of the relationship they have, whereas men can just kinda be in whatever and float through various situationships etc. and it won't matter because no one will judge them. .",
"date": "2024-04-16",
"id": "kzxqbf6",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "tulipfraise",
"body": "As a woman all these stats tell me are that men aren’t worthy or quality partners in the first place and I shouldn’t even try. There’s absolutely no reason women are spending thousands of dollars, upending their families, changing their entire financial and living situation and divorcing from a long time partner for shits and giggles",
"date": "2024-04-17",
"id": "kzyi2wt",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Applepitou3",
"body": "There are waaaaaayy to many factors to think about with this number.",
"date": "2024-04-17",
"id": "kzze5d2",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Necessary_Row_8356",
"body": "Nah the women are probably 100% responsible..😎",
"date": "2024-04-17",
"id": "kzzjp01",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "TheSpiritofFkngCrazy",
"body": "Well, let's take men out of the equation. Lesbian marriages. Then take women out of the equation. Gay marriages. The numbers don't lie fam.",
"date": "2024-04-17",
"id": "l0150go",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Intelligent_Loan_540",
"body": "This stat just reminds me to never get married honestly",
"date": "2024-04-17",
"id": "l01gksd",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Complex-Key-8704",
"body": "Def not. They initiate 80% of marriage so it only follows they'd want to correct their mistake",
"date": "2024-04-17",
"id": "l02tg6h",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Latin_Stallion7777",
"body": "P.S.: Men are statistically somewhat more likely to cheat, and actually far less likely to forgive cheating, whether it's a one-time thing or an ongoing thing. And I agree that infidelity is a justifiable basis for ending a marriage. But that doesn't change the fact that women file more often. Arguably, that still represents them giving up on the marriage more than the other person, even if the husband is screwing up. (And if one partner is not providing adequate sex/affection, which is common, especially from wives, infidelity is a foreseeable result, with the withholding party therefore partly to blame.)\n\nClearly any marriage that a person leaves is unsatisfactory to that person. But people also assume a responsibility to work on a marriage when they get married, and that includes clearly conveying one's unhappiness, the need for specific changes, and the consequences for not changing. So to me the relevant question is whether the person leaving (usually the woman, apparently) is conveying that prior to leaving. That may be an open question, but many men are clearly claiming they're completely/generally blindsided when the women files. And it's unlikely that's always BS, even if it may be sometimes.",
"date": "2024-04-18",
"id": "l057050",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Solicidal",
"body": "As a general rule, anybody claiming to be “redpilled” likes to be believe absolute fucking nonsense based on what makes them feel good. That whole “Beta, Alpha, Sigma” era was basically repackaged star signs for insecure blokes.",
"date": "2024-04-18",
"id": "l05lqh9",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "EmbarrassedMix4182",
"body": "Women initiating divorce more often doesn't solely indicate they're the main reason for marital dissatisfaction. Initiating divorce can reflect women's empowerment to leave unsatisfactory relationships. Reasons for divorce are multifaceted and can't be simplified to gender. Both men and women can be at fault for various issues like infidelity or incompatible life goals. Statistics on cheating show both genders are capable. Moreover, some divorces occur due to mutual agreement or irreconcilable differences, without blame on either side. Using divorce initiation rates to blame women overlooks complex relationship dynamics and individual circumstances, painting an unfair picture of women as the sole cause.",
"date": "2024-04-24",
"id": "l110x4x",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "Suspicious_Ferret108",
"body": "Women initiating most divorces doesn't solely reflect their fault in relationships failing. It indicates they're more likely to seek dissolution in unsatisfactory marriages. Reasons for divorce vary; it's not inherently about fault. Men and women both contribute to marital issues. Infidelity, for instance, doesn't automatically assign blame to one gender. Divorce often stems from compatibility issues, evolving priorities, or irreconcilable differences. Focus on understanding the complexities of relationship dynamics rather than assigning blame based on divorce initiation rates. Recognize individual circumstances and mutual responsibilities in relationship breakdowns.",
"date": "2024-05-10",
"id": "l3gala7",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
"body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
"date": "2024-04-13",
"id": "1c35brq",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1109,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/"
},
{
"author": "vaksninus",
"body": "With stats like these, there really is very little point in gettkng marriee. In the first place, you don't need papers to love someone.",
"date": "2024-05-27",
"id": "l5z3wws",
"parent_id": "1c35brq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
]
]
| challenge |
[
{
"author": "fantasy53",
"body": " When I think about what skills politician should have in a perfect world, I would say that politician, needs to be someone who is genuinely passionate about their country and wants to improve it while being able to think outside of the box, with innovative solutions to long-standing societal problems. Someone who has knowledge in a variety of fields, but is unafraid to consult experts and key stakeholders When making decisions to get a full picture of the impact These decisions will have on the country in the future.\nA person who listens to voters and is able to assimilate Their feedback into the decisions they make.\nIt’s not a unique skill set, but I don’t think many people fit this criteria, and those who do will often gravitate to much higher paying fields.\nI think that in Order to have the best people in positions of power in our society, they need to be well compensated for that role since this is the only way we can get true expertise.\nIt also prevents politicians from being easily bought by lobbyists and private individuals, and Limits, the impacts that foreign states can have on policy.\nI also believe that if the salaries for politicians were higher, the sleaze and general corruption we see on a daily basis would decrease because voters would be much less apathetic and hold their representatives to a higher standard. insertion point after standard., at the 1,349th position",
"date": "2024-04-21",
"id": "1c9giyd",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: in a democracy, politician should be some of the highest paid people",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c9giyd/cmv_in_a_democracy_politician_should_be_some_of/"
},
{
"author": "lametown_poopypants",
"body": "I seem to think a lot of the problem with politicians is that it has become a job. When this happens the priority becomes saving the job rather than doing the most good. It’s why politicians go along with their party more than not. It’s why polarization is so high. If the politician wasn’t actively working for their next role, title, or election we could progress faster. \n\nIf you added significant monetary compensation to this mix, you’d have more people wanting to be in the seat for the money and fighting harder to keep it for themselves. That doesn’t help the people.",
"date": "2024-04-21",
"id": "l0lllhy",
"parent_id": "1c9giyd",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "fantasy53",
"body": "Δ I agree that higher salary would definitely attract people who are only interested in money for themselves, and they might do whatever it takes to keep it.",
"date": "2024-04-21",
"id": "l0nadyh",
"parent_id": "l0lllhy",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "DeltaBot",
"body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/lametown_poopypants ([4∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/lametown_poopypants)).\n\n^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
"date": "2024-04-21",
"id": "l0naoaw",
"parent_id": "l0nadyh",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
]
| [
[
{
"author": "fantasy53",
"body": " When I think about what skills politician should have in a perfect world, I would say that politician, needs to be someone who is genuinely passionate about their country and wants to improve it while being able to think outside of the box, with innovative solutions to long-standing societal problems. Someone who has knowledge in a variety of fields, but is unafraid to consult experts and key stakeholders When making decisions to get a full picture of the impact These decisions will have on the country in the future.\nA person who listens to voters and is able to assimilate Their feedback into the decisions they make.\nIt’s not a unique skill set, but I don’t think many people fit this criteria, and those who do will often gravitate to much higher paying fields.\nI think that in Order to have the best people in positions of power in our society, they need to be well compensated for that role since this is the only way we can get true expertise.\nIt also prevents politicians from being easily bought by lobbyists and private individuals, and Limits, the impacts that foreign states can have on policy.\nI also believe that if the salaries for politicians were higher, the sleaze and general corruption we see on a daily basis would decrease because voters would be much less apathetic and hold their representatives to a higher standard. insertion point after standard., at the 1,349th position",
"date": "2024-04-21",
"id": "1c9giyd",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: in a democracy, politician should be some of the highest paid people",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c9giyd/cmv_in_a_democracy_politician_should_be_some_of/"
},
{
"author": "Callec254",
"body": "No, we don't want people going into politics just for the money.\n\n(Well, more than they already do now, I mean.)",
"date": "2024-04-21",
"id": "l0l4jgo",
"parent_id": "1c9giyd",
"score": -3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "fantasy53",
"body": "If you want expertise, you have to pay for it.\nThe world revolves around money, I think it’s naive to ignore this.\nOtherwise you get people who are not as knowledgeable making policy decisions who can easily be bribed by third parties",
"date": "2024-04-21",
"id": "l0l58tq",
"parent_id": "l0l4jgo",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "fantasy53",
"body": " When I think about what skills politician should have in a perfect world, I would say that politician, needs to be someone who is genuinely passionate about their country and wants to improve it while being able to think outside of the box, with innovative solutions to long-standing societal problems. Someone who has knowledge in a variety of fields, but is unafraid to consult experts and key stakeholders When making decisions to get a full picture of the impact These decisions will have on the country in the future.\nA person who listens to voters and is able to assimilate Their feedback into the decisions they make.\nIt’s not a unique skill set, but I don’t think many people fit this criteria, and those who do will often gravitate to much higher paying fields.\nI think that in Order to have the best people in positions of power in our society, they need to be well compensated for that role since this is the only way we can get true expertise.\nIt also prevents politicians from being easily bought by lobbyists and private individuals, and Limits, the impacts that foreign states can have on policy.\nI also believe that if the salaries for politicians were higher, the sleaze and general corruption we see on a daily basis would decrease because voters would be much less apathetic and hold their representatives to a higher standard. insertion point after standard., at the 1,349th position",
"date": "2024-04-21",
"id": "1c9giyd",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: in a democracy, politician should be some of the highest paid people",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c9giyd/cmv_in_a_democracy_politician_should_be_some_of/"
},
{
"author": "Dry_Bumblebee1111",
"body": "I think we should incentivise but highest paid is a bit far.\n\n\nPersonally I think that their pay should be in line with the national minimum wage, which incentivises fairer pay for everyone. ",
"date": "2024-04-21",
"id": "l0l5d3f",
"parent_id": "1c9giyd",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "fantasy53",
"body": "I don’t see why not, train drivers get paid significantly more in the UK than the average citizen, and that’s because they have much more responsibility.\nIf a train crashes, hundreds of people could potentially die.\nBut a Politician who drafts policy which could affect millions of people shouldn’t get that same consideration?",
"date": "2024-04-21",
"id": "l0l5xg5",
"parent_id": "l0l5d3f",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "fantasy53",
"body": " When I think about what skills politician should have in a perfect world, I would say that politician, needs to be someone who is genuinely passionate about their country and wants to improve it while being able to think outside of the box, with innovative solutions to long-standing societal problems. Someone who has knowledge in a variety of fields, but is unafraid to consult experts and key stakeholders When making decisions to get a full picture of the impact These decisions will have on the country in the future.\nA person who listens to voters and is able to assimilate Their feedback into the decisions they make.\nIt’s not a unique skill set, but I don’t think many people fit this criteria, and those who do will often gravitate to much higher paying fields.\nI think that in Order to have the best people in positions of power in our society, they need to be well compensated for that role since this is the only way we can get true expertise.\nIt also prevents politicians from being easily bought by lobbyists and private individuals, and Limits, the impacts that foreign states can have on policy.\nI also believe that if the salaries for politicians were higher, the sleaze and general corruption we see on a daily basis would decrease because voters would be much less apathetic and hold their representatives to a higher standard. insertion point after standard., at the 1,349th position",
"date": "2024-04-21",
"id": "1c9giyd",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: in a democracy, politician should be some of the highest paid people",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c9giyd/cmv_in_a_democracy_politician_should_be_some_of/"
},
{
"author": "dnkyfluffer5",
"body": "When has the United States ever been a democracy? The founding fathers always believed in and wrote about it in the constitution convention debates that the minority of the opulent must be protected against the majority and that is how we have been since. We are a spectator sport every 4 years. The power structure that be does everything in its power to make sure our votes count the least. votes aren’t suppose to count when it helps the little guy out. We only give money to like Lockheed Martin and Boeing and other corporations that are well established. Or a billionaire the. They get large government tax dollars that won’t get paid back and that’s not capitalism either but that far another time but yeah we have never been a capitalist country. It’s all a faced to make ourselves feel better. \n\nThink about it the Supreme Court intentionally left the 100 k or however many voted didn’t get counted in the 2000 election thanks to the Supreme Court which is part of the evaluation system that was set up from the beginning to help the rich and powerful and to make it very difficult to make any change for\nThe little guy.",
"date": "2024-04-21",
"id": "l0l63oa",
"parent_id": "1c9giyd",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "fantasy53",
"body": " When I think about what skills politician should have in a perfect world, I would say that politician, needs to be someone who is genuinely passionate about their country and wants to improve it while being able to think outside of the box, with innovative solutions to long-standing societal problems. Someone who has knowledge in a variety of fields, but is unafraid to consult experts and key stakeholders When making decisions to get a full picture of the impact These decisions will have on the country in the future.\nA person who listens to voters and is able to assimilate Their feedback into the decisions they make.\nIt’s not a unique skill set, but I don’t think many people fit this criteria, and those who do will often gravitate to much higher paying fields.\nI think that in Order to have the best people in positions of power in our society, they need to be well compensated for that role since this is the only way we can get true expertise.\nIt also prevents politicians from being easily bought by lobbyists and private individuals, and Limits, the impacts that foreign states can have on policy.\nI also believe that if the salaries for politicians were higher, the sleaze and general corruption we see on a daily basis would decrease because voters would be much less apathetic and hold their representatives to a higher standard. insertion point after standard., at the 1,349th position",
"date": "2024-04-21",
"id": "1c9giyd",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: in a democracy, politician should be some of the highest paid people",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c9giyd/cmv_in_a_democracy_politician_should_be_some_of/"
},
{
"author": "npchunter",
"body": "You're in luck. Tenured politicians like Nancy Pelosi make millions, perhaps hundreds of millions. Somehow. It hasn't proved sufficient to attract talent, at least not talent in the things that matter to citizens.\n\nVoters cannot tell genuine competence at governing from marketing skill that projects the illusion of competence. Inevitably they optimize toward the latter. How paying office-holders more produces different decisions at the ballot box is not clear.",
"date": "2024-04-21",
"id": "l0l6wun",
"parent_id": "1c9giyd",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "fantasy53",
"body": "I think the illusion of competence is always going to be a problem in any system, but There are ways to work around it like encouraging accountability and honesty and transparency from elected representatives. \nBut I think Pay will help to attract top talent, though in some cases, it perhaps doesn’t work as well as it should.",
"date": "2024-04-21",
"id": "l0l8bce",
"parent_id": "l0l6wun",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "fantasy53",
"body": " When I think about what skills politician should have in a perfect world, I would say that politician, needs to be someone who is genuinely passionate about their country and wants to improve it while being able to think outside of the box, with innovative solutions to long-standing societal problems. Someone who has knowledge in a variety of fields, but is unafraid to consult experts and key stakeholders When making decisions to get a full picture of the impact These decisions will have on the country in the future.\nA person who listens to voters and is able to assimilate Their feedback into the decisions they make.\nIt’s not a unique skill set, but I don’t think many people fit this criteria, and those who do will often gravitate to much higher paying fields.\nI think that in Order to have the best people in positions of power in our society, they need to be well compensated for that role since this is the only way we can get true expertise.\nIt also prevents politicians from being easily bought by lobbyists and private individuals, and Limits, the impacts that foreign states can have on policy.\nI also believe that if the salaries for politicians were higher, the sleaze and general corruption we see on a daily basis would decrease because voters would be much less apathetic and hold their representatives to a higher standard. insertion point after standard., at the 1,349th position",
"date": "2024-04-21",
"id": "1c9giyd",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: in a democracy, politician should be some of the highest paid people",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c9giyd/cmv_in_a_democracy_politician_should_be_some_of/"
},
{
"author": "Shredding_Airguitar",
"body": "They'd be bought by lobbyists and others just as much as today btw. The issue with politicians is how much power they weld and that attracts megalomaniacs and kletomaniacs, authoritarians and others. Limiting government is really the best way to actually limit the effects of government corruption.",
"date": "2024-04-21",
"id": "l0lgdbo",
"parent_id": "1c9giyd",
"score": 7,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "fantasy53",
"body": "No matter how small the government is, eventually, someone somewhere will be making policy decisions, and I believe that ensuring that person is sufficiently compensated will ensure that those decisions are made in favour of the electorate rather than corporations.",
"date": "2024-04-21",
"id": "l0lpmxa",
"parent_id": "l0lgdbo",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "fantasy53",
"body": " When I think about what skills politician should have in a perfect world, I would say that politician, needs to be someone who is genuinely passionate about their country and wants to improve it while being able to think outside of the box, with innovative solutions to long-standing societal problems. Someone who has knowledge in a variety of fields, but is unafraid to consult experts and key stakeholders When making decisions to get a full picture of the impact These decisions will have on the country in the future.\nA person who listens to voters and is able to assimilate Their feedback into the decisions they make.\nIt’s not a unique skill set, but I don’t think many people fit this criteria, and those who do will often gravitate to much higher paying fields.\nI think that in Order to have the best people in positions of power in our society, they need to be well compensated for that role since this is the only way we can get true expertise.\nIt also prevents politicians from being easily bought by lobbyists and private individuals, and Limits, the impacts that foreign states can have on policy.\nI also believe that if the salaries for politicians were higher, the sleaze and general corruption we see on a daily basis would decrease because voters would be much less apathetic and hold their representatives to a higher standard. insertion point after standard., at the 1,349th position",
"date": "2024-04-21",
"id": "1c9giyd",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: in a democracy, politician should be some of the highest paid people",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c9giyd/cmv_in_a_democracy_politician_should_be_some_of/"
},
{
"author": "twoflower-insured",
"body": "> needs to be someone who is genuinely passionate about their country and wants to improve it while being able to think outside of the box, with innovative solutions to long-standing societal problems. Someone who has knowledge in a variety of fields, but is unafraid to consult experts and key stakeholders When making decisions to get a full picture of the impact These decisions will have on the country in the future. \n\nthe staffers can do all that.\n\nthe politician just needs to be a good speaker with a pretty face who can explain things to the public and trusts the right staffers who can do all the good thinking.",
"date": "2024-04-21",
"id": "l0lhpcl",
"parent_id": "1c9giyd",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "fantasy53",
"body": "Not all democracies have staffers for politicians",
"date": "2024-04-21",
"id": "l0lk5hf",
"parent_id": "l0lhpcl",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "fantasy53",
"body": " When I think about what skills politician should have in a perfect world, I would say that politician, needs to be someone who is genuinely passionate about their country and wants to improve it while being able to think outside of the box, with innovative solutions to long-standing societal problems. Someone who has knowledge in a variety of fields, but is unafraid to consult experts and key stakeholders When making decisions to get a full picture of the impact These decisions will have on the country in the future.\nA person who listens to voters and is able to assimilate Their feedback into the decisions they make.\nIt’s not a unique skill set, but I don’t think many people fit this criteria, and those who do will often gravitate to much higher paying fields.\nI think that in Order to have the best people in positions of power in our society, they need to be well compensated for that role since this is the only way we can get true expertise.\nIt also prevents politicians from being easily bought by lobbyists and private individuals, and Limits, the impacts that foreign states can have on policy.\nI also believe that if the salaries for politicians were higher, the sleaze and general corruption we see on a daily basis would decrease because voters would be much less apathetic and hold their representatives to a higher standard. insertion point after standard., at the 1,349th position",
"date": "2024-04-21",
"id": "1c9giyd",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: in a democracy, politician should be some of the highest paid people",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c9giyd/cmv_in_a_democracy_politician_should_be_some_of/"
},
{
"author": "strange-humor",
"body": "They are in the US. Unfortunately, they are just paid by their real masters. That is hidden campaign bribes. Or contracts and jobs for them once they leave public service, or many other ways that companies in the US legally compensate politicians for screwing over their constituents to serve the needs of the corporations.",
"date": "2024-04-21",
"id": "l0lltlr",
"parent_id": "1c9giyd",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "fantasy53",
"body": "But that’s my point, if the job of a politician paid much more, then they would not be as inclined to betray their values and ethics for C to the major oil company afterwards.",
"date": "2024-04-21",
"id": "l0lp6j2",
"parent_id": "l0lltlr",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "fantasy53",
"body": " When I think about what skills politician should have in a perfect world, I would say that politician, needs to be someone who is genuinely passionate about their country and wants to improve it while being able to think outside of the box, with innovative solutions to long-standing societal problems. Someone who has knowledge in a variety of fields, but is unafraid to consult experts and key stakeholders When making decisions to get a full picture of the impact These decisions will have on the country in the future.\nA person who listens to voters and is able to assimilate Their feedback into the decisions they make.\nIt’s not a unique skill set, but I don’t think many people fit this criteria, and those who do will often gravitate to much higher paying fields.\nI think that in Order to have the best people in positions of power in our society, they need to be well compensated for that role since this is the only way we can get true expertise.\nIt also prevents politicians from being easily bought by lobbyists and private individuals, and Limits, the impacts that foreign states can have on policy.\nI also believe that if the salaries for politicians were higher, the sleaze and general corruption we see on a daily basis would decrease because voters would be much less apathetic and hold their representatives to a higher standard. insertion point after standard., at the 1,349th position",
"date": "2024-04-21",
"id": "1c9giyd",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: in a democracy, politician should be some of the highest paid people",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c9giyd/cmv_in_a_democracy_politician_should_be_some_of/"
},
{
"author": "Narf234",
"body": "I’d like it if every dollar paid to a politician was able to be tracked in and out.\n\n Full transparency for a public servant. I want to know who’s paying them and who they are paying.",
"date": "2024-04-21",
"id": "l0lqb49",
"parent_id": "1c9giyd",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "fantasy53",
"body": " When I think about what skills politician should have in a perfect world, I would say that politician, needs to be someone who is genuinely passionate about their country and wants to improve it while being able to think outside of the box, with innovative solutions to long-standing societal problems. Someone who has knowledge in a variety of fields, but is unafraid to consult experts and key stakeholders When making decisions to get a full picture of the impact These decisions will have on the country in the future.\nA person who listens to voters and is able to assimilate Their feedback into the decisions they make.\nIt’s not a unique skill set, but I don’t think many people fit this criteria, and those who do will often gravitate to much higher paying fields.\nI think that in Order to have the best people in positions of power in our society, they need to be well compensated for that role since this is the only way we can get true expertise.\nIt also prevents politicians from being easily bought by lobbyists and private individuals, and Limits, the impacts that foreign states can have on policy.\nI also believe that if the salaries for politicians were higher, the sleaze and general corruption we see on a daily basis would decrease because voters would be much less apathetic and hold their representatives to a higher standard. insertion point after standard., at the 1,349th position",
"date": "2024-04-21",
"id": "1c9giyd",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: in a democracy, politician should be some of the highest paid people",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c9giyd/cmv_in_a_democracy_politician_should_be_some_of/"
},
{
"author": "sawdeanz",
"body": "Can you describe some people or roles that people hold now, that might become politicians if the pay was higher?\n\nBecause that’s the whole basis of your view. But it’s not obvious to me who these smart people are and what they are doing instead. Scientists and academic professors for example rarely make more than the congressional salary. \n\nAnd this is also undermined by the fact that these people could run, they just don’t or rarely win. Ultimately, I think you just have a very idealistic view of how politics work. In reality, politicians are rarely chosen for their academic expertise, and this one change is not going to change that. \n\nI actually would support a salary raise…but probably not for the reasons you do. Someone like alexandria ocasio-cortez is a good reason why. By all accounts she is very well educated and a good representative to those people that voted for her, but she has talked about how she could barely afford rent in DC. But she also doesn’t really fit your criteria, because she wasn’t in a high paying field prior…she was doing various normal jobs. So raising the salary would remove the types of barriers that prevent others like her from running. But she wasn’t attracted to the role for money…she was passionate about the policies \n\nOn the other hand, there are plenty of millionaires in Congress too. They are neither incentivized nor dissuaded by the salary. Rather they are there because of the power and opportunities it creates. And despite being filthy rich, they are still very corrupt. There is no reason to believe that raising the salary would dissuade these types from running or prevent corruption. \n\nWhat you need to do is ban insider trading and have stricter rules about corruption and conflicts of interest. I think the issue with the high salary idea is that while you are removing some barriers, you are also attracting those that value money and wealth over genuine passion and care. So let’s say you raise the wage very high and manage to attract a top talent who would otherwise be working their way up the corporate ladder. This person gets in office and gets offered campaign money from a lobbyist. Do you think they are going to turn it down just because they are intelligent? Or are they going to accept it because they are an ambitious person motivated by money? Well…it’s probably the second one since we already established that this is why they took the politician job in the first place. \n\nSo yes, you do need a higher salary so that money isn’t a barrier for normal people to become politicians, but you don’t want it so high that it attracts too many of the purely financially motivated people. Currently, we have the worst of both worlds because the low salary keeps out normal people but the unethical perks of the job (attract the financially ambitious people.",
"date": "2024-04-21",
"id": "l0m1225",
"parent_id": "1c9giyd",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "digbyforever",
"body": "Right now the entry level for a lawyer in D.C. is $180,000. Salary for a Congressman is $174,000. So you're saying to run for office, for a lot of people --- lawyers, for example --- you'd have to accept a salary when you're probably in your 40s or 50s with a family, that's less than you were making right out of law school.\n\nIf you said to someone, I've got a great job for you, but you have to take a 70% pay cut, how would that *not* dissuade a huge number of people?",
"date": "2024-04-21",
"id": "l0mniuo",
"parent_id": "l0m1225",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "fantasy53",
"body": " When I think about what skills politician should have in a perfect world, I would say that politician, needs to be someone who is genuinely passionate about their country and wants to improve it while being able to think outside of the box, with innovative solutions to long-standing societal problems. Someone who has knowledge in a variety of fields, but is unafraid to consult experts and key stakeholders When making decisions to get a full picture of the impact These decisions will have on the country in the future.\nA person who listens to voters and is able to assimilate Their feedback into the decisions they make.\nIt’s not a unique skill set, but I don’t think many people fit this criteria, and those who do will often gravitate to much higher paying fields.\nI think that in Order to have the best people in positions of power in our society, they need to be well compensated for that role since this is the only way we can get true expertise.\nIt also prevents politicians from being easily bought by lobbyists and private individuals, and Limits, the impacts that foreign states can have on policy.\nI also believe that if the salaries for politicians were higher, the sleaze and general corruption we see on a daily basis would decrease because voters would be much less apathetic and hold their representatives to a higher standard. insertion point after standard., at the 1,349th position",
"date": "2024-04-21",
"id": "1c9giyd",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: in a democracy, politician should be some of the highest paid people",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c9giyd/cmv_in_a_democracy_politician_should_be_some_of/"
},
{
"author": "Lynx_aye9",
"body": "Most politicians make more than the average American, yet still are vulnerable to lobbying and some to corruption. Look at the current Supreme Court. Extremely well paid lifetime appointments, and yet they accept gifts and allow others to influence them. They shouldn't even be associated with tribal politics and yet that is what we currently have.\n\nThe problem lies primarily with lobbying, not the pay scale of politicians. Being well paid does not mean someone is immune to monetary influence or gifts.",
"date": "2024-04-21",
"id": "l0mahxn",
"parent_id": "1c9giyd",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "fantasy53",
"body": " When I think about what skills politician should have in a perfect world, I would say that politician, needs to be someone who is genuinely passionate about their country and wants to improve it while being able to think outside of the box, with innovative solutions to long-standing societal problems. Someone who has knowledge in a variety of fields, but is unafraid to consult experts and key stakeholders When making decisions to get a full picture of the impact These decisions will have on the country in the future.\nA person who listens to voters and is able to assimilate Their feedback into the decisions they make.\nIt’s not a unique skill set, but I don’t think many people fit this criteria, and those who do will often gravitate to much higher paying fields.\nI think that in Order to have the best people in positions of power in our society, they need to be well compensated for that role since this is the only way we can get true expertise.\nIt also prevents politicians from being easily bought by lobbyists and private individuals, and Limits, the impacts that foreign states can have on policy.\nI also believe that if the salaries for politicians were higher, the sleaze and general corruption we see on a daily basis would decrease because voters would be much less apathetic and hold their representatives to a higher standard. insertion point after standard., at the 1,349th position",
"date": "2024-04-21",
"id": "1c9giyd",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: in a democracy, politician should be some of the highest paid people",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c9giyd/cmv_in_a_democracy_politician_should_be_some_of/"
},
{
"author": "EmbarrassedMix4182",
"body": "While higher salaries might attract talent, excessive pay can also incentivize people primarily interested in personal gain. True passion and dedication to public service should be the driving force behind a politician's career, not the paycheck. A modest salary ensures that individuals enter politics for the right reasons, prioritizing the public good over personal wealth. Furthermore, relying solely on high salaries to prevent corruption overlooks systemic reforms and transparency measures. A strong ethical framework, public accountability, and strict regulations are more effective in combating corruption than salary alone.",
"date": "2024-04-22",
"id": "l0q8vhd",
"parent_id": "1c9giyd",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "fantasy53",
"body": " When I think about what skills politician should have in a perfect world, I would say that politician, needs to be someone who is genuinely passionate about their country and wants to improve it while being able to think outside of the box, with innovative solutions to long-standing societal problems. Someone who has knowledge in a variety of fields, but is unafraid to consult experts and key stakeholders When making decisions to get a full picture of the impact These decisions will have on the country in the future.\nA person who listens to voters and is able to assimilate Their feedback into the decisions they make.\nIt’s not a unique skill set, but I don’t think many people fit this criteria, and those who do will often gravitate to much higher paying fields.\nI think that in Order to have the best people in positions of power in our society, they need to be well compensated for that role since this is the only way we can get true expertise.\nIt also prevents politicians from being easily bought by lobbyists and private individuals, and Limits, the impacts that foreign states can have on policy.\nI also believe that if the salaries for politicians were higher, the sleaze and general corruption we see on a daily basis would decrease because voters would be much less apathetic and hold their representatives to a higher standard. insertion point after standard., at the 1,349th position",
"date": "2024-04-21",
"id": "1c9giyd",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: in a democracy, politician should be some of the highest paid people",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c9giyd/cmv_in_a_democracy_politician_should_be_some_of/"
},
{
"author": "Euphoric-Form3771",
"body": "You really think politicians only make what they do on paper?\n\nThese freaks launder money daily. You sound like you live under a rock.",
"date": "2024-04-24",
"id": "l10dm1k",
"parent_id": "1c9giyd",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
]
]
| moderate |
[
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": "I played a single player looter shooter and realized yet again how terrible level scaling is as an mechanic.\n\n**Level Scaling** is where the world (or specific areas) and enemies levels up with you to provide a constant challenge, primarily by upping your foes' stats.\n\nBut this makes no sense.\n\n* I find a weapon that does 10% more damage. Enemies get 10% more armor.\n* I level up and increase my crit change. Enemies get more health.\n\nWhy do I even get level ups or make choices if they are all countered by level scaling? I don't become any stronger. It's just a sisyphean task where numbers go up but nothing actually changes.\n\nIn worst case level scaling even makes certain \"builds\" obsolete. For example I often take +exp and +loot skills first. But if enemies get stronger based on my level it means that game becomes harder because I periodized fast progression instead of stronger build. Enemies now have more health but I don't do more damage.\n\nAlso level scaling breaks the immersion. You start the game in low level area but when you later return there after fighting gods and deamons, suddenly everyone who used to wear leather armors are using divide plate mails. You don't get the power fantasy and feeling strong if everything just scales with you. World will rotate around the player and doesn't feel like its own living thing.\n\nI just hate that games have meaningless numbers that go up while nothing actually matters. Its cathartic pleasure to kill enemies who used to offer you a challenge with easy once you get stronger. That's the whole point of getting stronger.\n\n",
"date": "2024-05-10",
"id": "1coixeb",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 102,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Level scaling is bad video game design",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1coixeb/cmv_level_scaling_is_bad_video_game_design/"
},
{
"author": "sdric",
"body": "Some games are about power fantasies, others are meant to challenge you. In a game without level scaling you will ultimately only fight a small set of enemies in a max level area, which significantly decreases gameplay variety, additionally the game might get dull if you 1-shot everything. Level scaling allows devs to keep earlier content relevant, keep an increased variety of interesting content and keep the player physically (reflexes) and mentally engaged.\n\nPlayer progression should always be focused on giving the player more ways to engage content. Level scaling has never been the issue, bad progression if player characters is. If leveling up does nothing but increasing your numbers the game will get stale quickly, albeit a \"gear threadmill\" can be a way to keep \"fulltime players\" who consume content unreasonably quickly occupied, especially in live service games.",
"date": "2024-05-10",
"id": "l3edkd0",
"parent_id": "1coixeb",
"score": 58,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": ">Level scaling allows devs to keep earlier content relevant\n\n!delta\n\nWhile I understand need to keep content relevant I think it's cathartic pleasure to kill enemies who used to offer you a challenge with easy once you get stronger. It's relevant because the new context.\n\nBut this leads to another critism. If you end up just killing same enemies at high level, maybe the game should have ended already. This level scaling just creates artificial padding to the runtime.",
"date": "2024-05-10",
"id": "l3ee6lk",
"parent_id": "l3edkd0",
"score": 31,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "DeltaBot",
"body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/sdric ([1∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/sdric)).\n\n^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
"date": "2024-05-10",
"id": "l3eeatx",
"parent_id": "l3ee6lk",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
]
| [
[
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": "I played a single player looter shooter and realized yet again how terrible level scaling is as an mechanic.\n\n**Level Scaling** is where the world (or specific areas) and enemies levels up with you to provide a constant challenge, primarily by upping your foes' stats.\n\nBut this makes no sense.\n\n* I find a weapon that does 10% more damage. Enemies get 10% more armor.\n* I level up and increase my crit change. Enemies get more health.\n\nWhy do I even get level ups or make choices if they are all countered by level scaling? I don't become any stronger. It's just a sisyphean task where numbers go up but nothing actually changes.\n\nIn worst case level scaling even makes certain \"builds\" obsolete. For example I often take +exp and +loot skills first. But if enemies get stronger based on my level it means that game becomes harder because I periodized fast progression instead of stronger build. Enemies now have more health but I don't do more damage.\n\nAlso level scaling breaks the immersion. You start the game in low level area but when you later return there after fighting gods and deamons, suddenly everyone who used to wear leather armors are using divide plate mails. You don't get the power fantasy and feeling strong if everything just scales with you. World will rotate around the player and doesn't feel like its own living thing.\n\nI just hate that games have meaningless numbers that go up while nothing actually matters. Its cathartic pleasure to kill enemies who used to offer you a challenge with easy once you get stronger. That's the whole point of getting stronger.\n\n",
"date": "2024-05-10",
"id": "1coixeb",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 102,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Level scaling is bad video game design",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1coixeb/cmv_level_scaling_is_bad_video_game_design/"
},
{
"author": "Alexandur",
"body": "When done right, level scaling doesn't 100% offset all progression you make as you've described. I can't actually think of any game where it does work that way. Usually it's something more like if you do 10% more damage, enemies become 5% stronger. Just a sort of rubber band effect to keep things from getting too trivial too quickly.",
"date": "2024-05-10",
"id": "l3eclzx",
"parent_id": "1coixeb",
"score": 21,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": "So why not just make that level up +5% instead of +10%?\n\nThen keep all the enemies identical throughout the game. Now you can actually keep easier enemies in starter zone and when you return to them you feel powerful.",
"date": "2024-05-10",
"id": "l3ecr1n",
"parent_id": "l3eclzx",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": "I played a single player looter shooter and realized yet again how terrible level scaling is as an mechanic.\n\n**Level Scaling** is where the world (or specific areas) and enemies levels up with you to provide a constant challenge, primarily by upping your foes' stats.\n\nBut this makes no sense.\n\n* I find a weapon that does 10% more damage. Enemies get 10% more armor.\n* I level up and increase my crit change. Enemies get more health.\n\nWhy do I even get level ups or make choices if they are all countered by level scaling? I don't become any stronger. It's just a sisyphean task where numbers go up but nothing actually changes.\n\nIn worst case level scaling even makes certain \"builds\" obsolete. For example I often take +exp and +loot skills first. But if enemies get stronger based on my level it means that game becomes harder because I periodized fast progression instead of stronger build. Enemies now have more health but I don't do more damage.\n\nAlso level scaling breaks the immersion. You start the game in low level area but when you later return there after fighting gods and deamons, suddenly everyone who used to wear leather armors are using divide plate mails. You don't get the power fantasy and feeling strong if everything just scales with you. World will rotate around the player and doesn't feel like its own living thing.\n\nI just hate that games have meaningless numbers that go up while nothing actually matters. Its cathartic pleasure to kill enemies who used to offer you a challenge with easy once you get stronger. That's the whole point of getting stronger.\n\n",
"date": "2024-05-10",
"id": "1coixeb",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 102,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Level scaling is bad video game design",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1coixeb/cmv_level_scaling_is_bad_video_game_design/"
},
{
"author": "Galious",
"body": "Wouldn’t you say it’s a tool that can be used sometimes well, sometimes not?\n\nFor example I remind the first time I played Final Fantasy 7 (yes I’m old) and I played it a lot and then I finally arrive at final battle with epic music against Sephiroth and… I destroyed him without breaking a sweat and it felt totally lackluster. Had there been some level scaling system and I would have enjoyed it way better.\n\nNow of course if you loot the Godslayer sword of epicness with 9999dps and you go back to the starting area of the game and « small rabbit » has now one million HP and drops the Godslayer sword of epicness +1 , then it becomes silly",
"date": "2024-05-10",
"id": "l3eddop",
"parent_id": "1coixeb",
"score": 29,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": "> I remind the first time I played Final Fantasy 7 (yes I’m old)\n\nI assume you did same thing we all did when we were kids and had too much time on our hand. I did same with FF3. You grinded and looked all the secrets. Your work was rewarded of you being powerful.\n\n> « small rabbit » has now one million HP and drops the Godslayer sword of epicness +1\n\nI feel it's more often this than the other.",
"date": "2024-05-10",
"id": "l3edlr7",
"parent_id": "l3eddop",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": "I played a single player looter shooter and realized yet again how terrible level scaling is as an mechanic.\n\n**Level Scaling** is where the world (or specific areas) and enemies levels up with you to provide a constant challenge, primarily by upping your foes' stats.\n\nBut this makes no sense.\n\n* I find a weapon that does 10% more damage. Enemies get 10% more armor.\n* I level up and increase my crit change. Enemies get more health.\n\nWhy do I even get level ups or make choices if they are all countered by level scaling? I don't become any stronger. It's just a sisyphean task where numbers go up but nothing actually changes.\n\nIn worst case level scaling even makes certain \"builds\" obsolete. For example I often take +exp and +loot skills first. But if enemies get stronger based on my level it means that game becomes harder because I periodized fast progression instead of stronger build. Enemies now have more health but I don't do more damage.\n\nAlso level scaling breaks the immersion. You start the game in low level area but when you later return there after fighting gods and deamons, suddenly everyone who used to wear leather armors are using divide plate mails. You don't get the power fantasy and feeling strong if everything just scales with you. World will rotate around the player and doesn't feel like its own living thing.\n\nI just hate that games have meaningless numbers that go up while nothing actually matters. Its cathartic pleasure to kill enemies who used to offer you a challenge with easy once you get stronger. That's the whole point of getting stronger.\n\n",
"date": "2024-05-10",
"id": "1coixeb",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 102,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Level scaling is bad video game design",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1coixeb/cmv_level_scaling_is_bad_video_game_design/"
},
{
"author": "10vernothin",
"body": "I can attest to games that don't level-scale, and what happens is that maps become obsolete. In an infinite progression game, that means ever-expanding amount of resource and bloat as more people hit level cap. A level-scaling factor can be a way to basically \"replay\" the content and save on bloat. Often, the loot and exp is increased. A lot of \"dungeon\"-style games have level-scaling so that assets can be replayed.\n\nFor close-ended games, level scaling also becomes a way to \"balance\" the game. You can't \"farm\" your way through the easy maps and get that power spike through the rest of the game. Whether you stay in the map or you go to the next one, you'll be more or less forced to go through the same power progression. Sure, one can achieve that with fancy exponential level exp math and many games do that instead, but I get it. The science of figuring the cost vs benefit of a person deciding staying there grinding out levels vs just going to the next map is sometimes a lot to ask. \n\nOn the other hand, level-scaling can also enable more explorer-minded players to explore the map more free, as content isn't necessarily gated by how much time you spend in the game or the dreaded \"you are too low leveled to be in this zone\". You'll often see this happen more in more modern open-world games as game companies realize that people get bored of repetitive gameplay much faster than before, and when they do, they use their time to instead go out to explore new areas. Level-scaling, in a sense, is something that creates passive excitement for an adventures, the monsters always challenging but not overwhelming, while the mild incentives of spending MTX, in-game money to upgrade, or stopping to grind a little is always at the edge of their mind. Good game design will be able to toe that line of making it just enough so it's always stimulating, whether it's the challenge of weaving through a hard enemy, or finding a weapon that temporarily gives you the edge every time you upgrade.\n\nBut also, not a lot of games nowadays actually uses level-scale as their only way to progress (unless it's a mobile game). They either do a tiered system where the game auto-level-scales but you can visit your old difficulties or just have low-level maps become obsolete, including not gain any exp or loot. Because yeah, what you're describing is an inflation game and those usually hold the attention of people for about 3 weeks (I work in mobile gaming I've seen the stats). Turns out big numbers go up infinitely do have some appeal, and you can at least get some sweet ad revenue before the jig is up. \n\nIn the end, level-scaling is a tool, and people like different things, so game companies turn to their toolkits to pander to different demographics. Personally, I think grinding levels and playing video games in itself is a Sisyphean task, and I've come to a realization that it's what brings you joy that matters. You and a LOT of others despise inflation games, and I get it. But to some, the daily dopamine of finding new loot and constantly upgrading them is the way to go until they get bored, then, they get under a new rock to push. I can only imagine it get them through the day.",
"date": "2024-05-10",
"id": "l3eg8uo",
"parent_id": "1coixeb",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": "I played a single player looter shooter and realized yet again how terrible level scaling is as an mechanic.\n\n**Level Scaling** is where the world (or specific areas) and enemies levels up with you to provide a constant challenge, primarily by upping your foes' stats.\n\nBut this makes no sense.\n\n* I find a weapon that does 10% more damage. Enemies get 10% more armor.\n* I level up and increase my crit change. Enemies get more health.\n\nWhy do I even get level ups or make choices if they are all countered by level scaling? I don't become any stronger. It's just a sisyphean task where numbers go up but nothing actually changes.\n\nIn worst case level scaling even makes certain \"builds\" obsolete. For example I often take +exp and +loot skills first. But if enemies get stronger based on my level it means that game becomes harder because I periodized fast progression instead of stronger build. Enemies now have more health but I don't do more damage.\n\nAlso level scaling breaks the immersion. You start the game in low level area but when you later return there after fighting gods and deamons, suddenly everyone who used to wear leather armors are using divide plate mails. You don't get the power fantasy and feeling strong if everything just scales with you. World will rotate around the player and doesn't feel like its own living thing.\n\nI just hate that games have meaningless numbers that go up while nothing actually matters. Its cathartic pleasure to kill enemies who used to offer you a challenge with easy once you get stronger. That's the whole point of getting stronger.\n\n",
"date": "2024-05-10",
"id": "1coixeb",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 102,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Level scaling is bad video game design",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1coixeb/cmv_level_scaling_is_bad_video_game_design/"
},
{
"author": "Forsaken-House8685",
"body": "The problem without level scaling is that at some point you get so powerful that it gets boring.",
"date": "2024-05-10",
"id": "l3eh2mo",
"parent_id": "1coixeb",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": "I played a single player looter shooter and realized yet again how terrible level scaling is as an mechanic.\n\n**Level Scaling** is where the world (or specific areas) and enemies levels up with you to provide a constant challenge, primarily by upping your foes' stats.\n\nBut this makes no sense.\n\n* I find a weapon that does 10% more damage. Enemies get 10% more armor.\n* I level up and increase my crit change. Enemies get more health.\n\nWhy do I even get level ups or make choices if they are all countered by level scaling? I don't become any stronger. It's just a sisyphean task where numbers go up but nothing actually changes.\n\nIn worst case level scaling even makes certain \"builds\" obsolete. For example I often take +exp and +loot skills first. But if enemies get stronger based on my level it means that game becomes harder because I periodized fast progression instead of stronger build. Enemies now have more health but I don't do more damage.\n\nAlso level scaling breaks the immersion. You start the game in low level area but when you later return there after fighting gods and deamons, suddenly everyone who used to wear leather armors are using divide plate mails. You don't get the power fantasy and feeling strong if everything just scales with you. World will rotate around the player and doesn't feel like its own living thing.\n\nI just hate that games have meaningless numbers that go up while nothing actually matters. Its cathartic pleasure to kill enemies who used to offer you a challenge with easy once you get stronger. That's the whole point of getting stronger.\n\n",
"date": "2024-05-10",
"id": "1coixeb",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 102,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Level scaling is bad video game design",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1coixeb/cmv_level_scaling_is_bad_video_game_design/"
},
{
"author": "Sayakai",
"body": "Limited level scaling mitigates having a lot of optional side contents. Some people just go for the main story and the map should be accessible to them without forcing them to grind. Others like to do all the side content, those people will get considerably stronger, but the main story still needs to be engaging for them. So a map that keeps all enemies withing a few levels of the player - over if they didn't do any side content, under if they did all of it - prevents the game from being unreasonably hard or boringly easy.",
"date": "2024-05-10",
"id": "l3ehywf",
"parent_id": "1coixeb",
"score": 6,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": "So why not tie power progression to the main story line only?",
"date": "2024-05-10",
"id": "l3eje6m",
"parent_id": "l3ehywf",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": "I played a single player looter shooter and realized yet again how terrible level scaling is as an mechanic.\n\n**Level Scaling** is where the world (or specific areas) and enemies levels up with you to provide a constant challenge, primarily by upping your foes' stats.\n\nBut this makes no sense.\n\n* I find a weapon that does 10% more damage. Enemies get 10% more armor.\n* I level up and increase my crit change. Enemies get more health.\n\nWhy do I even get level ups or make choices if they are all countered by level scaling? I don't become any stronger. It's just a sisyphean task where numbers go up but nothing actually changes.\n\nIn worst case level scaling even makes certain \"builds\" obsolete. For example I often take +exp and +loot skills first. But if enemies get stronger based on my level it means that game becomes harder because I periodized fast progression instead of stronger build. Enemies now have more health but I don't do more damage.\n\nAlso level scaling breaks the immersion. You start the game in low level area but when you later return there after fighting gods and deamons, suddenly everyone who used to wear leather armors are using divide plate mails. You don't get the power fantasy and feeling strong if everything just scales with you. World will rotate around the player and doesn't feel like its own living thing.\n\nI just hate that games have meaningless numbers that go up while nothing actually matters. Its cathartic pleasure to kill enemies who used to offer you a challenge with easy once you get stronger. That's the whole point of getting stronger.\n\n",
"date": "2024-05-10",
"id": "1coixeb",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 102,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Level scaling is bad video game design",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1coixeb/cmv_level_scaling_is_bad_video_game_design/"
},
{
"author": "wibbly-water",
"body": "> I find a weapon that does 10% more damage. Enemies get 10% more armor.\n\n\n> I level up and increase my crit change. Enemies get more health.\n\n\nI don't know which games do it like this but from my experience its more like\n\n\n- Find a weapon that does 10% more damage, enemies get 5% more health and do 5% more damage.\n\n\n- Level up and increase crit chance, enemies get 5% more health and 5% more damage.\n\n\nThe point is that level scaling is rigid and can be out maneuvered. You still gain the benefits while also having enemies get a little stronger to provide a challenge - rather than just countering every upgrade you make.",
"date": "2024-05-10",
"id": "l3eppet",
"parent_id": "1coixeb",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": "I played a single player looter shooter and realized yet again how terrible level scaling is as an mechanic.\n\n**Level Scaling** is where the world (or specific areas) and enemies levels up with you to provide a constant challenge, primarily by upping your foes' stats.\n\nBut this makes no sense.\n\n* I find a weapon that does 10% more damage. Enemies get 10% more armor.\n* I level up and increase my crit change. Enemies get more health.\n\nWhy do I even get level ups or make choices if they are all countered by level scaling? I don't become any stronger. It's just a sisyphean task where numbers go up but nothing actually changes.\n\nIn worst case level scaling even makes certain \"builds\" obsolete. For example I often take +exp and +loot skills first. But if enemies get stronger based on my level it means that game becomes harder because I periodized fast progression instead of stronger build. Enemies now have more health but I don't do more damage.\n\nAlso level scaling breaks the immersion. You start the game in low level area but when you later return there after fighting gods and deamons, suddenly everyone who used to wear leather armors are using divide plate mails. You don't get the power fantasy and feeling strong if everything just scales with you. World will rotate around the player and doesn't feel like its own living thing.\n\nI just hate that games have meaningless numbers that go up while nothing actually matters. Its cathartic pleasure to kill enemies who used to offer you a challenge with easy once you get stronger. That's the whole point of getting stronger.\n\n",
"date": "2024-05-10",
"id": "1coixeb",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 102,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Level scaling is bad video game design",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1coixeb/cmv_level_scaling_is_bad_video_game_design/"
},
{
"author": "Temporary-Earth4939",
"body": "Level scaling is possibly slightly less bad than arbitrary and immersion-breaking numbers bloat. I agree with all of your criticism of level scaling but I'd argue it tends to result in a more real feeling world than RPGs like final fantasy where \"I grow stronger and can kill earlier things more easily\" really translates to \"I can kill the yellow version of this enemy in one hit but now the green version with a different name is challenging and the purple version one shots me.\"\n\n\nWhich is to say, level scaling exists because numbers bloat from DnD and FF is expected from many gamers, and is just *so awful* that some additional system was needed to make it feel less absurd in an open world game. \n\n\nOf course the right solution is to just kill numbers bloat in the first place, have difficulty increase via larger groups (kill a squad instead of a solo guy) or genuinely bigger / scarier baddies, telegraph more difficult areas in-game via visual or story cues, and make power growth feel roughly realistic (i.e. much more modest / gradual, and based more on capabilities than just outputting bigger numbers). But this is *hard* to design so you don't see it much, especially since some people really just do want to see the numbers get bigger so they can feel cool. ",
"date": "2024-05-10",
"id": "l3eq6ur",
"parent_id": "1coixeb",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Major_Pressure3176",
"body": "Skyrim is a classic version of scaling by enemy version, with a couple of twists. Sometimes upgraded versions have new abilities, like draugar shouting (disarm and ragdoll affect you at all levels. Also, the player has more space to improve. You will always eventually outscale the enemies.\n\nOne RPG I like that has no-leveling enemies is Horizon: Zero Dawn. Some enemies get a few more armor pieces but that's it. Enemies introduced as bosses become environmental. Aloy improves by gaining new ammo types and skills, not percent damage (outside of a few edge cases).",
"date": "2024-05-10",
"id": "l3gg93j",
"parent_id": "l3eq6ur",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": "I played a single player looter shooter and realized yet again how terrible level scaling is as an mechanic.\n\n**Level Scaling** is where the world (or specific areas) and enemies levels up with you to provide a constant challenge, primarily by upping your foes' stats.\n\nBut this makes no sense.\n\n* I find a weapon that does 10% more damage. Enemies get 10% more armor.\n* I level up and increase my crit change. Enemies get more health.\n\nWhy do I even get level ups or make choices if they are all countered by level scaling? I don't become any stronger. It's just a sisyphean task where numbers go up but nothing actually changes.\n\nIn worst case level scaling even makes certain \"builds\" obsolete. For example I often take +exp and +loot skills first. But if enemies get stronger based on my level it means that game becomes harder because I periodized fast progression instead of stronger build. Enemies now have more health but I don't do more damage.\n\nAlso level scaling breaks the immersion. You start the game in low level area but when you later return there after fighting gods and deamons, suddenly everyone who used to wear leather armors are using divide plate mails. You don't get the power fantasy and feeling strong if everything just scales with you. World will rotate around the player and doesn't feel like its own living thing.\n\nI just hate that games have meaningless numbers that go up while nothing actually matters. Its cathartic pleasure to kill enemies who used to offer you a challenge with easy once you get stronger. That's the whole point of getting stronger.\n\n",
"date": "2024-05-10",
"id": "1coixeb",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 102,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Level scaling is bad video game design",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1coixeb/cmv_level_scaling_is_bad_video_game_design/"
},
{
"author": "QuantumVexation",
"body": "Everything must be taken in context\n\nYou go over to a Pokémon subreddit and they act like level scaling will solve all their problems (it won’t).\n\nBut also some games being super OP would actually be boring too, so level scaling comes in to make sure low level missions are remotely engaging for high level players",
"date": "2024-05-10",
"id": "l3et0sd",
"parent_id": "1coixeb",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": "I played a single player looter shooter and realized yet again how terrible level scaling is as an mechanic.\n\n**Level Scaling** is where the world (or specific areas) and enemies levels up with you to provide a constant challenge, primarily by upping your foes' stats.\n\nBut this makes no sense.\n\n* I find a weapon that does 10% more damage. Enemies get 10% more armor.\n* I level up and increase my crit change. Enemies get more health.\n\nWhy do I even get level ups or make choices if they are all countered by level scaling? I don't become any stronger. It's just a sisyphean task where numbers go up but nothing actually changes.\n\nIn worst case level scaling even makes certain \"builds\" obsolete. For example I often take +exp and +loot skills first. But if enemies get stronger based on my level it means that game becomes harder because I periodized fast progression instead of stronger build. Enemies now have more health but I don't do more damage.\n\nAlso level scaling breaks the immersion. You start the game in low level area but when you later return there after fighting gods and deamons, suddenly everyone who used to wear leather armors are using divide plate mails. You don't get the power fantasy and feeling strong if everything just scales with you. World will rotate around the player and doesn't feel like its own living thing.\n\nI just hate that games have meaningless numbers that go up while nothing actually matters. Its cathartic pleasure to kill enemies who used to offer you a challenge with easy once you get stronger. That's the whole point of getting stronger.\n\n",
"date": "2024-05-10",
"id": "1coixeb",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 102,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Level scaling is bad video game design",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1coixeb/cmv_level_scaling_is_bad_video_game_design/"
},
{
"author": "LarousseNik",
"body": "I think that this scaling is specifically a good design pattern as it incentivises thinking about your build.\n\nUsually it's like that: the enemies become 10% tougher while you, if your build us focused, thought out and efficient, deal 12% more damage on average; if your build is either all over the place or have too many of these greedy \"progression\" perks then you deal 8% more damage as a downside. That's exactly the trade-off you're supposed to think about and analyse whether you'll be able to, say, compensate it by skill or anything and whether it potentially pays off in the long run when you take the last important perk or find the key item. If that wasn't the case, the build itself would become completely irrelevant and there would be no reason not to take as much of these greedy perks as possible to power-level and make the rest of the game trivial.\n\nEven forgetting about the challenge, these \"meaningless numbers\" provide a bigger variety of playstyles. Like, you can argue that if your stat increases are exactly the same as enemies' then you can do away with the leveling system altogether; however, leveling allows you to choose which stats to upgrade and what perks to keep and how to play in general, so even if the challenge is constant throughout your playthrough, the feeling changes as you level.",
"date": "2024-05-10",
"id": "l3f1tgp",
"parent_id": "1coixeb",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": "I played a single player looter shooter and realized yet again how terrible level scaling is as an mechanic.\n\n**Level Scaling** is where the world (or specific areas) and enemies levels up with you to provide a constant challenge, primarily by upping your foes' stats.\n\nBut this makes no sense.\n\n* I find a weapon that does 10% more damage. Enemies get 10% more armor.\n* I level up and increase my crit change. Enemies get more health.\n\nWhy do I even get level ups or make choices if they are all countered by level scaling? I don't become any stronger. It's just a sisyphean task where numbers go up but nothing actually changes.\n\nIn worst case level scaling even makes certain \"builds\" obsolete. For example I often take +exp and +loot skills first. But if enemies get stronger based on my level it means that game becomes harder because I periodized fast progression instead of stronger build. Enemies now have more health but I don't do more damage.\n\nAlso level scaling breaks the immersion. You start the game in low level area but when you later return there after fighting gods and deamons, suddenly everyone who used to wear leather armors are using divide plate mails. You don't get the power fantasy and feeling strong if everything just scales with you. World will rotate around the player and doesn't feel like its own living thing.\n\nI just hate that games have meaningless numbers that go up while nothing actually matters. Its cathartic pleasure to kill enemies who used to offer you a challenge with easy once you get stronger. That's the whole point of getting stronger.\n\n",
"date": "2024-05-10",
"id": "1coixeb",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 102,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Level scaling is bad video game design",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1coixeb/cmv_level_scaling_is_bad_video_game_design/"
},
{
"author": "Kuja27",
"body": "Level scaling ensures your character never feels powerful until basically the very end of the game (if even then). And that is kinda dog shit imo.",
"date": "2024-05-10",
"id": "l3f1z8r",
"parent_id": "1coixeb",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": "I played a single player looter shooter and realized yet again how terrible level scaling is as an mechanic.\n\n**Level Scaling** is where the world (or specific areas) and enemies levels up with you to provide a constant challenge, primarily by upping your foes' stats.\n\nBut this makes no sense.\n\n* I find a weapon that does 10% more damage. Enemies get 10% more armor.\n* I level up and increase my crit change. Enemies get more health.\n\nWhy do I even get level ups or make choices if they are all countered by level scaling? I don't become any stronger. It's just a sisyphean task where numbers go up but nothing actually changes.\n\nIn worst case level scaling even makes certain \"builds\" obsolete. For example I often take +exp and +loot skills first. But if enemies get stronger based on my level it means that game becomes harder because I periodized fast progression instead of stronger build. Enemies now have more health but I don't do more damage.\n\nAlso level scaling breaks the immersion. You start the game in low level area but when you later return there after fighting gods and deamons, suddenly everyone who used to wear leather armors are using divide plate mails. You don't get the power fantasy and feeling strong if everything just scales with you. World will rotate around the player and doesn't feel like its own living thing.\n\nI just hate that games have meaningless numbers that go up while nothing actually matters. Its cathartic pleasure to kill enemies who used to offer you a challenge with easy once you get stronger. That's the whole point of getting stronger.\n\n",
"date": "2024-05-10",
"id": "1coixeb",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 102,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Level scaling is bad video game design",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1coixeb/cmv_level_scaling_is_bad_video_game_design/"
},
{
"author": "Low-Entertainer8609",
"body": "Level scaling has dramatically improved my multi-player experience. Diablo 4 and Fallout 76 scale to each player in a group, so that allows me to play with friends who are well above or below my level without one of us curbstomping all the enemies.",
"date": "2024-05-10",
"id": "l3f3ge8",
"parent_id": "1coixeb",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": "I played a single player looter shooter and realized yet again how terrible level scaling is as an mechanic.\n\n**Level Scaling** is where the world (or specific areas) and enemies levels up with you to provide a constant challenge, primarily by upping your foes' stats.\n\nBut this makes no sense.\n\n* I find a weapon that does 10% more damage. Enemies get 10% more armor.\n* I level up and increase my crit change. Enemies get more health.\n\nWhy do I even get level ups or make choices if they are all countered by level scaling? I don't become any stronger. It's just a sisyphean task where numbers go up but nothing actually changes.\n\nIn worst case level scaling even makes certain \"builds\" obsolete. For example I often take +exp and +loot skills first. But if enemies get stronger based on my level it means that game becomes harder because I periodized fast progression instead of stronger build. Enemies now have more health but I don't do more damage.\n\nAlso level scaling breaks the immersion. You start the game in low level area but when you later return there after fighting gods and deamons, suddenly everyone who used to wear leather armors are using divide plate mails. You don't get the power fantasy and feeling strong if everything just scales with you. World will rotate around the player and doesn't feel like its own living thing.\n\nI just hate that games have meaningless numbers that go up while nothing actually matters. Its cathartic pleasure to kill enemies who used to offer you a challenge with easy once you get stronger. That's the whole point of getting stronger.\n\n",
"date": "2024-05-10",
"id": "1coixeb",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 102,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Level scaling is bad video game design",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1coixeb/cmv_level_scaling_is_bad_video_game_design/"
},
{
"author": "HaveSexWithCars",
"body": "Level scaling is important in games where non-linear progression is allowed/encouraged. As an example of level scaling not being present, take pokemon scarlet/violet. The game actively suggests the player can pursue objectives in the order they please. But those objectives don't scales with the player's progression. So you can walk into a boss that's unbeatable for where in the game you are with no warning, as well as accidentally leave a low level boss for the very end of the game. And since the game doesn't tell you the *actual* order of things, it's pretty easy to have unsatisfying fights.",
"date": "2024-05-10",
"id": "l3f3t3y",
"parent_id": "1coixeb",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": "I played a single player looter shooter and realized yet again how terrible level scaling is as an mechanic.\n\n**Level Scaling** is where the world (or specific areas) and enemies levels up with you to provide a constant challenge, primarily by upping your foes' stats.\n\nBut this makes no sense.\n\n* I find a weapon that does 10% more damage. Enemies get 10% more armor.\n* I level up and increase my crit change. Enemies get more health.\n\nWhy do I even get level ups or make choices if they are all countered by level scaling? I don't become any stronger. It's just a sisyphean task where numbers go up but nothing actually changes.\n\nIn worst case level scaling even makes certain \"builds\" obsolete. For example I often take +exp and +loot skills first. But if enemies get stronger based on my level it means that game becomes harder because I periodized fast progression instead of stronger build. Enemies now have more health but I don't do more damage.\n\nAlso level scaling breaks the immersion. You start the game in low level area but when you later return there after fighting gods and deamons, suddenly everyone who used to wear leather armors are using divide plate mails. You don't get the power fantasy and feeling strong if everything just scales with you. World will rotate around the player and doesn't feel like its own living thing.\n\nI just hate that games have meaningless numbers that go up while nothing actually matters. Its cathartic pleasure to kill enemies who used to offer you a challenge with easy once you get stronger. That's the whole point of getting stronger.\n\n",
"date": "2024-05-10",
"id": "1coixeb",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 102,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Level scaling is bad video game design",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1coixeb/cmv_level_scaling_is_bad_video_game_design/"
},
{
"author": "Little_BallOfAnxiety",
"body": "I think you're misunderstanding how level scaling works in games. While there are several different approaches, npcs are typically scaled based on your level, not your stats. This means that 10% extra damage will still apply because the npc will get 10% more armor for every level rather than every time you are buffed yourself",
"date": "2024-05-10",
"id": "l3fbiiw",
"parent_id": "1coixeb",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": "I played a single player looter shooter and realized yet again how terrible level scaling is as an mechanic.\n\n**Level Scaling** is where the world (or specific areas) and enemies levels up with you to provide a constant challenge, primarily by upping your foes' stats.\n\nBut this makes no sense.\n\n* I find a weapon that does 10% more damage. Enemies get 10% more armor.\n* I level up and increase my crit change. Enemies get more health.\n\nWhy do I even get level ups or make choices if they are all countered by level scaling? I don't become any stronger. It's just a sisyphean task where numbers go up but nothing actually changes.\n\nIn worst case level scaling even makes certain \"builds\" obsolete. For example I often take +exp and +loot skills first. But if enemies get stronger based on my level it means that game becomes harder because I periodized fast progression instead of stronger build. Enemies now have more health but I don't do more damage.\n\nAlso level scaling breaks the immersion. You start the game in low level area but when you later return there after fighting gods and deamons, suddenly everyone who used to wear leather armors are using divide plate mails. You don't get the power fantasy and feeling strong if everything just scales with you. World will rotate around the player and doesn't feel like its own living thing.\n\nI just hate that games have meaningless numbers that go up while nothing actually matters. Its cathartic pleasure to kill enemies who used to offer you a challenge with easy once you get stronger. That's the whole point of getting stronger.\n\n",
"date": "2024-05-10",
"id": "1coixeb",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 102,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Level scaling is bad video game design",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1coixeb/cmv_level_scaling_is_bad_video_game_design/"
},
{
"author": "Wide_Connection9635",
"body": "Like everything, level scaling needs to be done 'correctly.' \n\nJust for example, I wouldn't think it good design that if you find a weapon that does 10% more damage, that the enemy then gets 10% more armor... because then finding that weapon is basically useless.\n\nHowever, let's say you are level 9. Then you enter a new area where the enemies are level 2. You're just going to walk through that area without any kind of challenge. Hey, maybe that's what you want as you want to feel uber powerful for leveling. But that might not be for everyone. Plus depending on the game, you might not even gain much experience killing level 2 units. So, let's say the game boosts the level 2 units to level 6. You're still more powerful and the section will be easier. But you still have to be somewhat alert and you still get more experience.\n\nTo me, that would be smart use of level scaling.\n\n \nA lot of this has to do with the specific rules in the game. For example, you worry about coming back to an area that used to challenge you and then being able to just smash everyone. What about games where once you defeat an area, the area is not 'clear' of enemies. I personally prefer that type of game (just a personal preference).",
"date": "2024-05-10",
"id": "l3fnldw",
"parent_id": "1coixeb",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": "I played a single player looter shooter and realized yet again how terrible level scaling is as an mechanic.\n\n**Level Scaling** is where the world (or specific areas) and enemies levels up with you to provide a constant challenge, primarily by upping your foes' stats.\n\nBut this makes no sense.\n\n* I find a weapon that does 10% more damage. Enemies get 10% more armor.\n* I level up and increase my crit change. Enemies get more health.\n\nWhy do I even get level ups or make choices if they are all countered by level scaling? I don't become any stronger. It's just a sisyphean task where numbers go up but nothing actually changes.\n\nIn worst case level scaling even makes certain \"builds\" obsolete. For example I often take +exp and +loot skills first. But if enemies get stronger based on my level it means that game becomes harder because I periodized fast progression instead of stronger build. Enemies now have more health but I don't do more damage.\n\nAlso level scaling breaks the immersion. You start the game in low level area but when you later return there after fighting gods and deamons, suddenly everyone who used to wear leather armors are using divide plate mails. You don't get the power fantasy and feeling strong if everything just scales with you. World will rotate around the player and doesn't feel like its own living thing.\n\nI just hate that games have meaningless numbers that go up while nothing actually matters. Its cathartic pleasure to kill enemies who used to offer you a challenge with easy once you get stronger. That's the whole point of getting stronger.\n\n",
"date": "2024-05-10",
"id": "1coixeb",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 102,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Level scaling is bad video game design",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1coixeb/cmv_level_scaling_is_bad_video_game_design/"
},
{
"author": "gojiguy",
"body": "I'd argue RPg mechanics have infested everything now and this is the price.\n\nGames don't need \"loot\" or \"grinding\" or even \"experience points\" but they get shoehorned for a false sense of progress",
"date": "2024-05-10",
"id": "l3fnpgm",
"parent_id": "1coixeb",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": "I played a single player looter shooter and realized yet again how terrible level scaling is as an mechanic.\n\n**Level Scaling** is where the world (or specific areas) and enemies levels up with you to provide a constant challenge, primarily by upping your foes' stats.\n\nBut this makes no sense.\n\n* I find a weapon that does 10% more damage. Enemies get 10% more armor.\n* I level up and increase my crit change. Enemies get more health.\n\nWhy do I even get level ups or make choices if they are all countered by level scaling? I don't become any stronger. It's just a sisyphean task where numbers go up but nothing actually changes.\n\nIn worst case level scaling even makes certain \"builds\" obsolete. For example I often take +exp and +loot skills first. But if enemies get stronger based on my level it means that game becomes harder because I periodized fast progression instead of stronger build. Enemies now have more health but I don't do more damage.\n\nAlso level scaling breaks the immersion. You start the game in low level area but when you later return there after fighting gods and deamons, suddenly everyone who used to wear leather armors are using divide plate mails. You don't get the power fantasy and feeling strong if everything just scales with you. World will rotate around the player and doesn't feel like its own living thing.\n\nI just hate that games have meaningless numbers that go up while nothing actually matters. Its cathartic pleasure to kill enemies who used to offer you a challenge with easy once you get stronger. That's the whole point of getting stronger.\n\n",
"date": "2024-05-10",
"id": "1coixeb",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 102,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Level scaling is bad video game design",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1coixeb/cmv_level_scaling_is_bad_video_game_design/"
},
{
"author": "Electrical-Farm-8881",
"body": "Try playing Final Fantasy VIII",
"date": "2024-05-10",
"id": "l3fssqr",
"parent_id": "1coixeb",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": "I played a single player looter shooter and realized yet again how terrible level scaling is as an mechanic.\n\n**Level Scaling** is where the world (or specific areas) and enemies levels up with you to provide a constant challenge, primarily by upping your foes' stats.\n\nBut this makes no sense.\n\n* I find a weapon that does 10% more damage. Enemies get 10% more armor.\n* I level up and increase my crit change. Enemies get more health.\n\nWhy do I even get level ups or make choices if they are all countered by level scaling? I don't become any stronger. It's just a sisyphean task where numbers go up but nothing actually changes.\n\nIn worst case level scaling even makes certain \"builds\" obsolete. For example I often take +exp and +loot skills first. But if enemies get stronger based on my level it means that game becomes harder because I periodized fast progression instead of stronger build. Enemies now have more health but I don't do more damage.\n\nAlso level scaling breaks the immersion. You start the game in low level area but when you later return there after fighting gods and deamons, suddenly everyone who used to wear leather armors are using divide plate mails. You don't get the power fantasy and feeling strong if everything just scales with you. World will rotate around the player and doesn't feel like its own living thing.\n\nI just hate that games have meaningless numbers that go up while nothing actually matters. Its cathartic pleasure to kill enemies who used to offer you a challenge with easy once you get stronger. That's the whole point of getting stronger.\n\n",
"date": "2024-05-10",
"id": "1coixeb",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 102,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Level scaling is bad video game design",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1coixeb/cmv_level_scaling_is_bad_video_game_design/"
},
{
"author": "FiestaDeLosMuerto",
"body": "Bethesda does it best but theyre too lazy to come up with new content so midway through their games they run out of strong gear and everyone has the same few weapons",
"date": "2024-05-10",
"id": "l3fur2x",
"parent_id": "1coixeb",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": "I would argue Bethesdas implementation is terrible. Worst even.\n\nEven on quick play through lowly raiders/bandits are boasting weapons fit for a king few hours in. There is no game logic behind these choices other than to provide harder enemies once player have become a dragon slaying semi god in a power armor but still dies to level scaled rats.",
"date": "2024-05-10",
"id": "l3fvgej",
"parent_id": "l3fur2x",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": "I played a single player looter shooter and realized yet again how terrible level scaling is as an mechanic.\n\n**Level Scaling** is where the world (or specific areas) and enemies levels up with you to provide a constant challenge, primarily by upping your foes' stats.\n\nBut this makes no sense.\n\n* I find a weapon that does 10% more damage. Enemies get 10% more armor.\n* I level up and increase my crit change. Enemies get more health.\n\nWhy do I even get level ups or make choices if they are all countered by level scaling? I don't become any stronger. It's just a sisyphean task where numbers go up but nothing actually changes.\n\nIn worst case level scaling even makes certain \"builds\" obsolete. For example I often take +exp and +loot skills first. But if enemies get stronger based on my level it means that game becomes harder because I periodized fast progression instead of stronger build. Enemies now have more health but I don't do more damage.\n\nAlso level scaling breaks the immersion. You start the game in low level area but when you later return there after fighting gods and deamons, suddenly everyone who used to wear leather armors are using divide plate mails. You don't get the power fantasy and feeling strong if everything just scales with you. World will rotate around the player and doesn't feel like its own living thing.\n\nI just hate that games have meaningless numbers that go up while nothing actually matters. Its cathartic pleasure to kill enemies who used to offer you a challenge with easy once you get stronger. That's the whole point of getting stronger.\n\n",
"date": "2024-05-10",
"id": "1coixeb",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 102,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Level scaling is bad video game design",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1coixeb/cmv_level_scaling_is_bad_video_game_design/"
},
{
"author": "RangersAreViable",
"body": "Are you talking about a Breath of the Wild type world where when you go back to that point, the enemies become stronger, or a Baldur’s Gate type world where the closer you get to completing the story, the stronger the enemies get?",
"date": "2024-05-10",
"id": "l3fvq4s",
"parent_id": "1coixeb",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": "I played a single player looter shooter and realized yet again how terrible level scaling is as an mechanic.\n\n**Level Scaling** is where the world (or specific areas) and enemies levels up with you to provide a constant challenge, primarily by upping your foes' stats.\n\nBut this makes no sense.\n\n* I find a weapon that does 10% more damage. Enemies get 10% more armor.\n* I level up and increase my crit change. Enemies get more health.\n\nWhy do I even get level ups or make choices if they are all countered by level scaling? I don't become any stronger. It's just a sisyphean task where numbers go up but nothing actually changes.\n\nIn worst case level scaling even makes certain \"builds\" obsolete. For example I often take +exp and +loot skills first. But if enemies get stronger based on my level it means that game becomes harder because I periodized fast progression instead of stronger build. Enemies now have more health but I don't do more damage.\n\nAlso level scaling breaks the immersion. You start the game in low level area but when you later return there after fighting gods and deamons, suddenly everyone who used to wear leather armors are using divide plate mails. You don't get the power fantasy and feeling strong if everything just scales with you. World will rotate around the player and doesn't feel like its own living thing.\n\nI just hate that games have meaningless numbers that go up while nothing actually matters. Its cathartic pleasure to kill enemies who used to offer you a challenge with easy once you get stronger. That's the whole point of getting stronger.\n\n",
"date": "2024-05-10",
"id": "1coixeb",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 102,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Level scaling is bad video game design",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1coixeb/cmv_level_scaling_is_bad_video_game_design/"
},
{
"author": "Friar_Corncob",
"body": "Borderlands does this very well. Ultimately, if you're build is good and you use the correct damage/aim for weak spots you will outscale the enemies. The game also scales up the loot you're getting and it makes it so you can replay the game with the same character and not just get bored running through trivial enemies through most of the game.",
"date": "2024-05-10",
"id": "l3fy7s9",
"parent_id": "1coixeb",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": "I played a single player looter shooter and realized yet again how terrible level scaling is as an mechanic.\n\n**Level Scaling** is where the world (or specific areas) and enemies levels up with you to provide a constant challenge, primarily by upping your foes' stats.\n\nBut this makes no sense.\n\n* I find a weapon that does 10% more damage. Enemies get 10% more armor.\n* I level up and increase my crit change. Enemies get more health.\n\nWhy do I even get level ups or make choices if they are all countered by level scaling? I don't become any stronger. It's just a sisyphean task where numbers go up but nothing actually changes.\n\nIn worst case level scaling even makes certain \"builds\" obsolete. For example I often take +exp and +loot skills first. But if enemies get stronger based on my level it means that game becomes harder because I periodized fast progression instead of stronger build. Enemies now have more health but I don't do more damage.\n\nAlso level scaling breaks the immersion. You start the game in low level area but when you later return there after fighting gods and deamons, suddenly everyone who used to wear leather armors are using divide plate mails. You don't get the power fantasy and feeling strong if everything just scales with you. World will rotate around the player and doesn't feel like its own living thing.\n\nI just hate that games have meaningless numbers that go up while nothing actually matters. Its cathartic pleasure to kill enemies who used to offer you a challenge with easy once you get stronger. That's the whole point of getting stronger.\n\n",
"date": "2024-05-10",
"id": "1coixeb",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 102,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Level scaling is bad video game design",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1coixeb/cmv_level_scaling_is_bad_video_game_design/"
},
{
"author": "An-Okay-Alternative",
"body": "Games are usually engaging when they pose some degree of challenge that needs to be met with skill. Level scaling when done well ensures that there’s a consistent level of difficulty so that as you progress and get both better at the game and better gear/stats it doesn’t get to the point where you’re just walking around mindlessly tapping buttons because it’s so easy.",
"date": "2024-05-10",
"id": "l3g7ovc",
"parent_id": "1coixeb",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": "I played a single player looter shooter and realized yet again how terrible level scaling is as an mechanic.\n\n**Level Scaling** is where the world (or specific areas) and enemies levels up with you to provide a constant challenge, primarily by upping your foes' stats.\n\nBut this makes no sense.\n\n* I find a weapon that does 10% more damage. Enemies get 10% more armor.\n* I level up and increase my crit change. Enemies get more health.\n\nWhy do I even get level ups or make choices if they are all countered by level scaling? I don't become any stronger. It's just a sisyphean task where numbers go up but nothing actually changes.\n\nIn worst case level scaling even makes certain \"builds\" obsolete. For example I often take +exp and +loot skills first. But if enemies get stronger based on my level it means that game becomes harder because I periodized fast progression instead of stronger build. Enemies now have more health but I don't do more damage.\n\nAlso level scaling breaks the immersion. You start the game in low level area but when you later return there after fighting gods and deamons, suddenly everyone who used to wear leather armors are using divide plate mails. You don't get the power fantasy and feeling strong if everything just scales with you. World will rotate around the player and doesn't feel like its own living thing.\n\nI just hate that games have meaningless numbers that go up while nothing actually matters. Its cathartic pleasure to kill enemies who used to offer you a challenge with easy once you get stronger. That's the whole point of getting stronger.\n\n",
"date": "2024-05-10",
"id": "1coixeb",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 102,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Level scaling is bad video game design",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1coixeb/cmv_level_scaling_is_bad_video_game_design/"
},
{
"author": "sawdeanz",
"body": ">In worst case level scaling even makes certain \"builds\" obsolete. For example I often take +exp and +loot skills first. But if enemies get stronger based on my level it means that game becomes harder because I periodized fast progression instead of stronger build. Enemies now have more health but I don't do more damage.\n\nDoesn't this go against your point? In a game with various builds, some of them will play differently. You can make the game harder if you want to by optimizing a build that does this or that better. \n\nObviously, a game would be bad if it really was just upping the numbers respectively. You would hope the game also introduces new mechanics, puzzles/challenges, or unique bad-guy powers. You need it to some extent or else the player character just becomes too strong. I remember thinking this when I was playing like Saint's Row IV, you get a bunch of really OP powers and weapons early in the game which basically negates a lot of the core gameplay. Like, once you can fly there is no incentive to steal and drive cars and the wanted system basically becomes a minor annoyance. And some people may like to just get to play with everything right away, but it definitely just serves to make the game less challenging. \n\nI guess the alternative is you make it a quest based game with some quests harder than others. This gives the illusion of choice but it's still essentially the same fundamental concept.",
"date": "2024-05-10",
"id": "l3gjfei",
"parent_id": "1coixeb",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": "I played a single player looter shooter and realized yet again how terrible level scaling is as an mechanic.\n\n**Level Scaling** is where the world (or specific areas) and enemies levels up with you to provide a constant challenge, primarily by upping your foes' stats.\n\nBut this makes no sense.\n\n* I find a weapon that does 10% more damage. Enemies get 10% more armor.\n* I level up and increase my crit change. Enemies get more health.\n\nWhy do I even get level ups or make choices if they are all countered by level scaling? I don't become any stronger. It's just a sisyphean task where numbers go up but nothing actually changes.\n\nIn worst case level scaling even makes certain \"builds\" obsolete. For example I often take +exp and +loot skills first. But if enemies get stronger based on my level it means that game becomes harder because I periodized fast progression instead of stronger build. Enemies now have more health but I don't do more damage.\n\nAlso level scaling breaks the immersion. You start the game in low level area but when you later return there after fighting gods and deamons, suddenly everyone who used to wear leather armors are using divide plate mails. You don't get the power fantasy and feeling strong if everything just scales with you. World will rotate around the player and doesn't feel like its own living thing.\n\nI just hate that games have meaningless numbers that go up while nothing actually matters. Its cathartic pleasure to kill enemies who used to offer you a challenge with easy once you get stronger. That's the whole point of getting stronger.\n\n",
"date": "2024-05-10",
"id": "1coixeb",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 102,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Level scaling is bad video game design",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1coixeb/cmv_level_scaling_is_bad_video_game_design/"
},
{
"author": "Satansleadguitarist",
"body": ">Its cathartic pleasure to kill enemies who used to offer you a challenge with easy once you get stronger. That's the whole point of getting stronger.\n\nThere's more than one way to design a game and just because it doesn't line up with what you personally like doesn't mean it's bad design. If every game was exactly the same almost everyone would complain that there isn't enough variety in games. \n\nSome games are designed as a power fantasy so you start out weak and slowly get stronger to the point where nothing can stand in your way and some people prefer that sense of becoming stronger and stronger until you're basically a god. Some people prefer games to be designed in a way that they can be constantly challenged all the way through and level scaling is an easy way to make that happen. Sure maybe there are better or more interesting ways to go about it but that doesn't mean level scaling is bad. One approach isn't inherently better than the other, they're just different ways tod design a game and different people are going to have different preferences.",
"date": "2024-05-10",
"id": "l3h7tpi",
"parent_id": "1coixeb",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": "I played a single player looter shooter and realized yet again how terrible level scaling is as an mechanic.\n\n**Level Scaling** is where the world (or specific areas) and enemies levels up with you to provide a constant challenge, primarily by upping your foes' stats.\n\nBut this makes no sense.\n\n* I find a weapon that does 10% more damage. Enemies get 10% more armor.\n* I level up and increase my crit change. Enemies get more health.\n\nWhy do I even get level ups or make choices if they are all countered by level scaling? I don't become any stronger. It's just a sisyphean task where numbers go up but nothing actually changes.\n\nIn worst case level scaling even makes certain \"builds\" obsolete. For example I often take +exp and +loot skills first. But if enemies get stronger based on my level it means that game becomes harder because I periodized fast progression instead of stronger build. Enemies now have more health but I don't do more damage.\n\nAlso level scaling breaks the immersion. You start the game in low level area but when you later return there after fighting gods and deamons, suddenly everyone who used to wear leather armors are using divide plate mails. You don't get the power fantasy and feeling strong if everything just scales with you. World will rotate around the player and doesn't feel like its own living thing.\n\nI just hate that games have meaningless numbers that go up while nothing actually matters. Its cathartic pleasure to kill enemies who used to offer you a challenge with easy once you get stronger. That's the whole point of getting stronger.\n\n",
"date": "2024-05-10",
"id": "1coixeb",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 102,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Level scaling is bad video game design",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1coixeb/cmv_level_scaling_is_bad_video_game_design/"
},
{
"author": "ahawk_one",
"body": "It’s a mixed bag for me. Sometimes it makes things feel pointless, sometimes it helps things continue to feel relevant. It really just depends on the goals of the developer and the game overall. \n\n\nSomething to consider is that players usually do not scale in a linear fashion. We do for a while, but that changes over time. On the one hand, you get better at the game and so enemies who are “equal” to you are easier to handle. On the other hand, you’ve likely acquired passive effects and active abilities from your leveling and the items you’ve obtained often have passive and active bonuses as well. So even though a formerly low level enemy is “scaled up” they are still weaker on average than they were when you first met them due to your non linear scaling.",
"date": "2024-05-10",
"id": "l3j0tv5",
"parent_id": "1coixeb",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": "I played a single player looter shooter and realized yet again how terrible level scaling is as an mechanic.\n\n**Level Scaling** is where the world (or specific areas) and enemies levels up with you to provide a constant challenge, primarily by upping your foes' stats.\n\nBut this makes no sense.\n\n* I find a weapon that does 10% more damage. Enemies get 10% more armor.\n* I level up and increase my crit change. Enemies get more health.\n\nWhy do I even get level ups or make choices if they are all countered by level scaling? I don't become any stronger. It's just a sisyphean task where numbers go up but nothing actually changes.\n\nIn worst case level scaling even makes certain \"builds\" obsolete. For example I often take +exp and +loot skills first. But if enemies get stronger based on my level it means that game becomes harder because I periodized fast progression instead of stronger build. Enemies now have more health but I don't do more damage.\n\nAlso level scaling breaks the immersion. You start the game in low level area but when you later return there after fighting gods and deamons, suddenly everyone who used to wear leather armors are using divide plate mails. You don't get the power fantasy and feeling strong if everything just scales with you. World will rotate around the player and doesn't feel like its own living thing.\n\nI just hate that games have meaningless numbers that go up while nothing actually matters. Its cathartic pleasure to kill enemies who used to offer you a challenge with easy once you get stronger. That's the whole point of getting stronger.\n\n",
"date": "2024-05-10",
"id": "1coixeb",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 102,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Level scaling is bad video game design",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1coixeb/cmv_level_scaling_is_bad_video_game_design/"
},
{
"author": "Sadistmon",
"body": "Global leveling scaling is bad, but having certain areas or enemies scale with you is a different story. \n\nFor example the world map in RPGs it is expected you'll traverse this quite frequently and return to areas later in the game, the world map scaling to you might even make sense in game if monsters overall are getting stronger. But if you go into an actual area the enemies will still be weaker.\n\nAnother example is having a certain type of enemy scale to you, like a rare bonus enemy with unique rewards. Not being able to get the unique rewards at a lower level would suck especially with the rare spawn rate missing your chance because you got the right RNG before you have a real chance to win. Conversely if it was a one hit KO later in the game it simply wouldn't do either, you wouldn't have earned the rewards. Level scaling is really the best option for an enemy like this.",
"date": "2024-05-11",
"id": "l3jak5x",
"parent_id": "1coixeb",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": "I played a single player looter shooter and realized yet again how terrible level scaling is as an mechanic.\n\n**Level Scaling** is where the world (or specific areas) and enemies levels up with you to provide a constant challenge, primarily by upping your foes' stats.\n\nBut this makes no sense.\n\n* I find a weapon that does 10% more damage. Enemies get 10% more armor.\n* I level up and increase my crit change. Enemies get more health.\n\nWhy do I even get level ups or make choices if they are all countered by level scaling? I don't become any stronger. It's just a sisyphean task where numbers go up but nothing actually changes.\n\nIn worst case level scaling even makes certain \"builds\" obsolete. For example I often take +exp and +loot skills first. But if enemies get stronger based on my level it means that game becomes harder because I periodized fast progression instead of stronger build. Enemies now have more health but I don't do more damage.\n\nAlso level scaling breaks the immersion. You start the game in low level area but when you later return there after fighting gods and deamons, suddenly everyone who used to wear leather armors are using divide plate mails. You don't get the power fantasy and feeling strong if everything just scales with you. World will rotate around the player and doesn't feel like its own living thing.\n\nI just hate that games have meaningless numbers that go up while nothing actually matters. Its cathartic pleasure to kill enemies who used to offer you a challenge with easy once you get stronger. That's the whole point of getting stronger.\n\n",
"date": "2024-05-10",
"id": "1coixeb",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 102,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Level scaling is bad video game design",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1coixeb/cmv_level_scaling_is_bad_video_game_design/"
},
{
"author": "Big-Health-2832",
"body": "I have always hated level scaling. For example I find it rewarding to go against a boss and lose to them then go grind some side quest, gain levels/skills and come back and beat him. \nWith level scaling, Imagine if you were taking a test in college and the difficulty of the test was related to how much you studied. Whether you studied 10 minutes or 5 hours you are gonna get a 90%. I think people against level scaling are the reason wow classic made a comeback",
"date": "2024-05-11",
"id": "l3jmmng",
"parent_id": "1coixeb",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": "I played a single player looter shooter and realized yet again how terrible level scaling is as an mechanic.\n\n**Level Scaling** is where the world (or specific areas) and enemies levels up with you to provide a constant challenge, primarily by upping your foes' stats.\n\nBut this makes no sense.\n\n* I find a weapon that does 10% more damage. Enemies get 10% more armor.\n* I level up and increase my crit change. Enemies get more health.\n\nWhy do I even get level ups or make choices if they are all countered by level scaling? I don't become any stronger. It's just a sisyphean task where numbers go up but nothing actually changes.\n\nIn worst case level scaling even makes certain \"builds\" obsolete. For example I often take +exp and +loot skills first. But if enemies get stronger based on my level it means that game becomes harder because I periodized fast progression instead of stronger build. Enemies now have more health but I don't do more damage.\n\nAlso level scaling breaks the immersion. You start the game in low level area but when you later return there after fighting gods and deamons, suddenly everyone who used to wear leather armors are using divide plate mails. You don't get the power fantasy and feeling strong if everything just scales with you. World will rotate around the player and doesn't feel like its own living thing.\n\nI just hate that games have meaningless numbers that go up while nothing actually matters. Its cathartic pleasure to kill enemies who used to offer you a challenge with easy once you get stronger. That's the whole point of getting stronger.\n\n",
"date": "2024-05-10",
"id": "1coixeb",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 102,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Level scaling is bad video game design",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1coixeb/cmv_level_scaling_is_bad_video_game_design/"
},
{
"author": "hewasaraverboy",
"body": "100% agree w you, I hate level scaling and think it ruins the feeling of progression in games \n\nThough I don’t think most games have scaling based on getting a new weapon , typically it’s based on your level\n\nSo if you get a new weapon while still at the same level, you will feel a power spike until you’ve had that weapon for a few levels\n\nIn a way it shifts the progression to be gear based instead of level based\n\nIf you have gear above your level you will feel stronger and if you have gear below your level you will feel weaker \n\nThe only game I think that does leveling scaling well is Skyrim, because instead of all enemies just being scales to your level, it simply adds to the types of enemies that spawn, and the stronger enemies are actually different\n\nLike if you go into a cave at level one you’ll see some like weak skeletons\n\nIf you go into a cave at level 10 you can see weak skeletons and strong skeletons\n\nIf you go in at level 30 you can see weak skeletons , strong skeletons, and skeleton death lords \n\nSo you still get to experience the progression since you demolish the weaker skeletons who used to feel strong to you, while being challenged by the newer ones which are stronger and look more imposing (better armor, weapons, bigger, etc)",
"date": "2024-05-11",
"id": "l3kr35i",
"parent_id": "1coixeb",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": "I played a single player looter shooter and realized yet again how terrible level scaling is as an mechanic.\n\n**Level Scaling** is where the world (or specific areas) and enemies levels up with you to provide a constant challenge, primarily by upping your foes' stats.\n\nBut this makes no sense.\n\n* I find a weapon that does 10% more damage. Enemies get 10% more armor.\n* I level up and increase my crit change. Enemies get more health.\n\nWhy do I even get level ups or make choices if they are all countered by level scaling? I don't become any stronger. It's just a sisyphean task where numbers go up but nothing actually changes.\n\nIn worst case level scaling even makes certain \"builds\" obsolete. For example I often take +exp and +loot skills first. But if enemies get stronger based on my level it means that game becomes harder because I periodized fast progression instead of stronger build. Enemies now have more health but I don't do more damage.\n\nAlso level scaling breaks the immersion. You start the game in low level area but when you later return there after fighting gods and deamons, suddenly everyone who used to wear leather armors are using divide plate mails. You don't get the power fantasy and feeling strong if everything just scales with you. World will rotate around the player and doesn't feel like its own living thing.\n\nI just hate that games have meaningless numbers that go up while nothing actually matters. Its cathartic pleasure to kill enemies who used to offer you a challenge with easy once you get stronger. That's the whole point of getting stronger.\n\n",
"date": "2024-05-10",
"id": "1coixeb",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 102,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Level scaling is bad video game design",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1coixeb/cmv_level_scaling_is_bad_video_game_design/"
},
{
"author": "Life-Mousse-3763",
"body": "Definitely agree. Even though it’s a minor thing, going back to earlier levels/stages after achieving power spikes and feeling untouchable is so gratifying. \n\nGoing back and it taking just as many hits to kill enemies and experiencing the same level of danger completely nullifies advancing my character in the first place lol",
"date": "2024-05-11",
"id": "l3l465j",
"parent_id": "1coixeb",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "Z7-852",
"body": "I played a single player looter shooter and realized yet again how terrible level scaling is as an mechanic.\n\n**Level Scaling** is where the world (or specific areas) and enemies levels up with you to provide a constant challenge, primarily by upping your foes' stats.\n\nBut this makes no sense.\n\n* I find a weapon that does 10% more damage. Enemies get 10% more armor.\n* I level up and increase my crit change. Enemies get more health.\n\nWhy do I even get level ups or make choices if they are all countered by level scaling? I don't become any stronger. It's just a sisyphean task where numbers go up but nothing actually changes.\n\nIn worst case level scaling even makes certain \"builds\" obsolete. For example I often take +exp and +loot skills first. But if enemies get stronger based on my level it means that game becomes harder because I periodized fast progression instead of stronger build. Enemies now have more health but I don't do more damage.\n\nAlso level scaling breaks the immersion. You start the game in low level area but when you later return there after fighting gods and deamons, suddenly everyone who used to wear leather armors are using divide plate mails. You don't get the power fantasy and feeling strong if everything just scales with you. World will rotate around the player and doesn't feel like its own living thing.\n\nI just hate that games have meaningless numbers that go up while nothing actually matters. Its cathartic pleasure to kill enemies who used to offer you a challenge with easy once you get stronger. That's the whole point of getting stronger.\n\n",
"date": "2024-05-10",
"id": "1coixeb",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 102,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: Level scaling is bad video game design",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1coixeb/cmv_level_scaling_is_bad_video_game_design/"
},
{
"author": "Ok-Crazy-6083",
"body": "I would only go as far as to say it's lazy game design. But the intent is to keep the difficulty the same while gating you out of certain areas until you've progressed in the game more. Because people only scale up to your current level, they don't scale down to your current level. So you put a bunch of high level monsters in one area, and then players are prevented from going there until they've done a bunch of prerequisites. That's a very lazy way to handle things, but if the intent is to keep the gameplay difficulty the same throughout the entire game, it's an easy way to do that. If you don't level scale, then you will get a world of Warcraft situation, where one max level character can literally depopulate an entire zone without any effort.",
"date": "2024-05-13",
"id": "l3wkj6q",
"parent_id": "1coixeb",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
]
]
| moderate |
[
{
"author": "garaile64",
"body": "I will define \"dangerous people\" and \"ideals of the left\" throughout the text. \nCriminality: the left's solution to high crime rates is improving education and life conditions. That is effective, but it's too long-term and people need to be safe now. As some criminals can be quite cruel, people will support harsher policies, not unlike what Bukele did in El Salvador. \nImmigration: one of the main reason people, especially in Europe, oppose lax immigration is because some immigrants will keep some \"traditions\" that the host country finds barbaric, like honor killings, homophobia or forcing women to cover their whole bodies. Poland accepts very few immigrants and is safer than some Western European countries that receive a whole medium-sized city worth of immigrants per year, and some of those immigrants are lazy bums that refuse to integrate. The rich countries should help the poorer ones to catch up so citizens of the latter don't need to move to the former to have a good life or safety, but, like with criminality, the citizens of poor countries need safety and money now. Also, rich countries rely on some immigrants because the local people aren't reproducing enough for the economy's liking, so they're stuck with this dilemma. \nTransit: a reason why public transit is unpopular in some places is because of the presence of people taking drugs, the likelihood of being mugged and the presence of perverts. The mugging was kinda discussed in the \"criminality session\". Dealing with the junkies relies on another long-term policy of dealing with possible economic and psychological problems, but people need to be safe now. Getting rid of the perverts relies on an even longer-term work of educating the population, maybe even wait for human evolution, as every major human culture is full of entitled cumbrains who think all women are objects for their delight.",
"date": "2024-06-10",
"id": "1dcj3yj",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: the ideals of the left rely on dangerous people not existing.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1dcj3yj/cmv_the_ideals_of_the_left_rely_on_dangerous/"
},
{
"author": "Alikont",
"body": "First of all, nuance is lost on the internet, and a lot of your comments feels like simplification or strawmanning.\n\n> Criminality\n\nWell, nobody says \"abolishing prisons\". What people want is rehabiliation before punishment. In a developed nation you would have very small number of really harsh criminals. And as some countries show, rehabiliation policies reduce the rate of recidivism, which is one of the core metrics of successful prison system. This also protects people from mistakes in court system - even if you get wrongfully convicted, your life isn't ruined.\n\n> Transit\n\nI live in what people call \"poorest country of Europe\" and we have quite extensive public transit system, and I don't remember even seeing anybody doing drugs here for decades. I saw maybe one attempt at robbery. It's also not a problem of public trainsit per se.\n\n> Immigration\n\nDid you ever seen an immigration process? It's such a layers of bullshit on top of layers of bullshit that a person who succesfully completes it is a national hero. The \"tough on immigarion\" is usually just about making this process more convoluted.\n\nWhere it fails is distinction between refugees and economic migration. Both in policis and in public discourse.",
"date": "2024-06-10",
"id": "l7y5ovo",
"parent_id": "1dcj3yj",
"score": 41,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "garaile64",
"body": "1- Thinking about it, the transit part doesn't work for much of Europe, as the problem is more about funding. Well-funded transit attracts people that are not \"the bottom\". !delta \n2- I wasn't talking about abolishing prisons, that's only viable in a place that works like a preschool cartoon. I was talking about improvements in education and life conditions being too long-term.",
"date": "2024-06-10",
"id": "l7y79e5",
"parent_id": "l7y5ovo",
"score": -3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "DeltaBot",
"body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Alikont ([6∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Alikont)).\n\n^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
"date": "2024-06-10",
"id": "l7y7eoc",
"parent_id": "l7y79e5",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
]
| [
[
{
"author": "garaile64",
"body": "I will define \"dangerous people\" and \"ideals of the left\" throughout the text. \nCriminality: the left's solution to high crime rates is improving education and life conditions. That is effective, but it's too long-term and people need to be safe now. As some criminals can be quite cruel, people will support harsher policies, not unlike what Bukele did in El Salvador. \nImmigration: one of the main reason people, especially in Europe, oppose lax immigration is because some immigrants will keep some \"traditions\" that the host country finds barbaric, like honor killings, homophobia or forcing women to cover their whole bodies. Poland accepts very few immigrants and is safer than some Western European countries that receive a whole medium-sized city worth of immigrants per year, and some of those immigrants are lazy bums that refuse to integrate. The rich countries should help the poorer ones to catch up so citizens of the latter don't need to move to the former to have a good life or safety, but, like with criminality, the citizens of poor countries need safety and money now. Also, rich countries rely on some immigrants because the local people aren't reproducing enough for the economy's liking, so they're stuck with this dilemma. \nTransit: a reason why public transit is unpopular in some places is because of the presence of people taking drugs, the likelihood of being mugged and the presence of perverts. The mugging was kinda discussed in the \"criminality session\". Dealing with the junkies relies on another long-term policy of dealing with possible economic and psychological problems, but people need to be safe now. Getting rid of the perverts relies on an even longer-term work of educating the population, maybe even wait for human evolution, as every major human culture is full of entitled cumbrains who think all women are objects for their delight.",
"date": "2024-06-10",
"id": "1dcj3yj",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: the ideals of the left rely on dangerous people not existing.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1dcj3yj/cmv_the_ideals_of_the_left_rely_on_dangerous/"
},
{
"author": "AleristheSeeker",
"body": "This feels like you're making a binary choice here...\n\nIt's completely possible to do both - focus on solving crime rates by improving conditions and still cracking down on the remaining cases. The first part is a statistical solution to a large number of cases, clearing up capacities for the second part. There's no need to pick one part and abandon the other.\n\nThe same can be said for pretty much everything you say here. Ideals are pretty much always unachievable - they're something we should strive towards, but to set them as something you need to reach at all costs is unproductive. The same can be said for nearly every ideal - left or right, progressive or conservative, xenophilic or xenophobic.",
"date": "2024-06-10",
"id": "l7y4z7q",
"parent_id": "1dcj3yj",
"score": 10,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "garaile64",
"body": "The issue is that everyone supports either one or the other, never both. In case of crime, people will think that not borderline torturing the criminal bastard is unfair to their victims. Also, I am pessimistic about policies that can only be done during the terms of several consecutive presidents or prime-ministers.",
"date": "2024-06-10",
"id": "l7y5hoz",
"parent_id": "l7y4z7q",
"score": -5,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "garaile64",
"body": "I will define \"dangerous people\" and \"ideals of the left\" throughout the text. \nCriminality: the left's solution to high crime rates is improving education and life conditions. That is effective, but it's too long-term and people need to be safe now. As some criminals can be quite cruel, people will support harsher policies, not unlike what Bukele did in El Salvador. \nImmigration: one of the main reason people, especially in Europe, oppose lax immigration is because some immigrants will keep some \"traditions\" that the host country finds barbaric, like honor killings, homophobia or forcing women to cover their whole bodies. Poland accepts very few immigrants and is safer than some Western European countries that receive a whole medium-sized city worth of immigrants per year, and some of those immigrants are lazy bums that refuse to integrate. The rich countries should help the poorer ones to catch up so citizens of the latter don't need to move to the former to have a good life or safety, but, like with criminality, the citizens of poor countries need safety and money now. Also, rich countries rely on some immigrants because the local people aren't reproducing enough for the economy's liking, so they're stuck with this dilemma. \nTransit: a reason why public transit is unpopular in some places is because of the presence of people taking drugs, the likelihood of being mugged and the presence of perverts. The mugging was kinda discussed in the \"criminality session\". Dealing with the junkies relies on another long-term policy of dealing with possible economic and psychological problems, but people need to be safe now. Getting rid of the perverts relies on an even longer-term work of educating the population, maybe even wait for human evolution, as every major human culture is full of entitled cumbrains who think all women are objects for their delight.",
"date": "2024-06-10",
"id": "1dcj3yj",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: the ideals of the left rely on dangerous people not existing.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1dcj3yj/cmv_the_ideals_of_the_left_rely_on_dangerous/"
},
{
"author": "Dyeeguy",
"body": "People are not generally scared to take public transport. They just perceive it to be less convenient for one reason or another",
"date": "2024-06-10",
"id": "l7y5623",
"parent_id": "1dcj3yj",
"score": 32,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "garaile64",
"body": "For the criminality part, I was thinking more about Brazil than the US. Also, the junkies and perverts are part of the reason people prefer the car. The junkies are more present in lackluster transit, but the perverts are inevitable, especially in more misogynistic cultures.",
"date": "2024-06-10",
"id": "l7y65b3",
"parent_id": "l7y5623",
"score": -8,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "garaile64",
"body": "I will define \"dangerous people\" and \"ideals of the left\" throughout the text. \nCriminality: the left's solution to high crime rates is improving education and life conditions. That is effective, but it's too long-term and people need to be safe now. As some criminals can be quite cruel, people will support harsher policies, not unlike what Bukele did in El Salvador. \nImmigration: one of the main reason people, especially in Europe, oppose lax immigration is because some immigrants will keep some \"traditions\" that the host country finds barbaric, like honor killings, homophobia or forcing women to cover their whole bodies. Poland accepts very few immigrants and is safer than some Western European countries that receive a whole medium-sized city worth of immigrants per year, and some of those immigrants are lazy bums that refuse to integrate. The rich countries should help the poorer ones to catch up so citizens of the latter don't need to move to the former to have a good life or safety, but, like with criminality, the citizens of poor countries need safety and money now. Also, rich countries rely on some immigrants because the local people aren't reproducing enough for the economy's liking, so they're stuck with this dilemma. \nTransit: a reason why public transit is unpopular in some places is because of the presence of people taking drugs, the likelihood of being mugged and the presence of perverts. The mugging was kinda discussed in the \"criminality session\". Dealing with the junkies relies on another long-term policy of dealing with possible economic and psychological problems, but people need to be safe now. Getting rid of the perverts relies on an even longer-term work of educating the population, maybe even wait for human evolution, as every major human culture is full of entitled cumbrains who think all women are objects for their delight.",
"date": "2024-06-10",
"id": "1dcj3yj",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: the ideals of the left rely on dangerous people not existing.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1dcj3yj/cmv_the_ideals_of_the_left_rely_on_dangerous/"
},
{
"author": "ProLifePanda",
"body": ">I will define \"dangerous people\" and \"ideals of the left\" throughout the text.\n\nYou define neither of things explicitly in your text. You also don't do a great job detailing how \"ideals of the left\" rely on no \"dangerous people\". \n\nYour edit of \"Well only SOME ideas\" is a cop out. Because I can point to any worldview and claim it relies on idealistic assumptions. For example, the GOP wants to deregulate industry. But this relies on the hope that businesses will act in the consumers best interest without government oversight, which we know they won't.",
"date": "2024-06-10",
"id": "l7y57wp",
"parent_id": "1dcj3yj",
"score": 10,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "garaile64",
"body": "Dangerous people: criminals, junkies, perverts, immigrants unwilling to let go of certain toxic traditions that aren't as well-seen in their host countries. \nAlthough the \"ideals of the left\" were actually just criminality, immigration and transit.",
"date": "2024-06-10",
"id": "l7y6kz4",
"parent_id": "l7y57wp",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "garaile64",
"body": "I will define \"dangerous people\" and \"ideals of the left\" throughout the text. \nCriminality: the left's solution to high crime rates is improving education and life conditions. That is effective, but it's too long-term and people need to be safe now. As some criminals can be quite cruel, people will support harsher policies, not unlike what Bukele did in El Salvador. \nImmigration: one of the main reason people, especially in Europe, oppose lax immigration is because some immigrants will keep some \"traditions\" that the host country finds barbaric, like honor killings, homophobia or forcing women to cover their whole bodies. Poland accepts very few immigrants and is safer than some Western European countries that receive a whole medium-sized city worth of immigrants per year, and some of those immigrants are lazy bums that refuse to integrate. The rich countries should help the poorer ones to catch up so citizens of the latter don't need to move to the former to have a good life or safety, but, like with criminality, the citizens of poor countries need safety and money now. Also, rich countries rely on some immigrants because the local people aren't reproducing enough for the economy's liking, so they're stuck with this dilemma. \nTransit: a reason why public transit is unpopular in some places is because of the presence of people taking drugs, the likelihood of being mugged and the presence of perverts. The mugging was kinda discussed in the \"criminality session\". Dealing with the junkies relies on another long-term policy of dealing with possible economic and psychological problems, but people need to be safe now. Getting rid of the perverts relies on an even longer-term work of educating the population, maybe even wait for human evolution, as every major human culture is full of entitled cumbrains who think all women are objects for their delight.",
"date": "2024-06-10",
"id": "1dcj3yj",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: the ideals of the left rely on dangerous people not existing.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1dcj3yj/cmv_the_ideals_of_the_left_rely_on_dangerous/"
},
{
"author": "Yarndhilawd",
"body": "This is dumb",
"date": "2024-06-10",
"id": "l7y63cx",
"parent_id": "1dcj3yj",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "changemyview-ModTeam",
"body": "Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: \n\n> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).\n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
"date": "2024-06-10",
"id": "l7y7g4e",
"parent_id": "l7y63cx",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "garaile64",
"body": "I will define \"dangerous people\" and \"ideals of the left\" throughout the text. \nCriminality: the left's solution to high crime rates is improving education and life conditions. That is effective, but it's too long-term and people need to be safe now. As some criminals can be quite cruel, people will support harsher policies, not unlike what Bukele did in El Salvador. \nImmigration: one of the main reason people, especially in Europe, oppose lax immigration is because some immigrants will keep some \"traditions\" that the host country finds barbaric, like honor killings, homophobia or forcing women to cover their whole bodies. Poland accepts very few immigrants and is safer than some Western European countries that receive a whole medium-sized city worth of immigrants per year, and some of those immigrants are lazy bums that refuse to integrate. The rich countries should help the poorer ones to catch up so citizens of the latter don't need to move to the former to have a good life or safety, but, like with criminality, the citizens of poor countries need safety and money now. Also, rich countries rely on some immigrants because the local people aren't reproducing enough for the economy's liking, so they're stuck with this dilemma. \nTransit: a reason why public transit is unpopular in some places is because of the presence of people taking drugs, the likelihood of being mugged and the presence of perverts. The mugging was kinda discussed in the \"criminality session\". Dealing with the junkies relies on another long-term policy of dealing with possible economic and psychological problems, but people need to be safe now. Getting rid of the perverts relies on an even longer-term work of educating the population, maybe even wait for human evolution, as every major human culture is full of entitled cumbrains who think all women are objects for their delight.",
"date": "2024-06-10",
"id": "1dcj3yj",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: the ideals of the left rely on dangerous people not existing.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1dcj3yj/cmv_the_ideals_of_the_left_rely_on_dangerous/"
},
{
"author": "Dennis_enzo",
"body": "'The left' doesn't exist as a unified group, so neither does 'the ideals of the left'. I've voted conservative left my entire life, and their priorities and ideals are not at all the same as progressive left. And even 'progressive left' has no one unified set of ideals.",
"date": "2024-06-10",
"id": "l7y7atc",
"parent_id": "1dcj3yj",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "garaile64",
"body": "I will define \"dangerous people\" and \"ideals of the left\" throughout the text. \nCriminality: the left's solution to high crime rates is improving education and life conditions. That is effective, but it's too long-term and people need to be safe now. As some criminals can be quite cruel, people will support harsher policies, not unlike what Bukele did in El Salvador. \nImmigration: one of the main reason people, especially in Europe, oppose lax immigration is because some immigrants will keep some \"traditions\" that the host country finds barbaric, like honor killings, homophobia or forcing women to cover their whole bodies. Poland accepts very few immigrants and is safer than some Western European countries that receive a whole medium-sized city worth of immigrants per year, and some of those immigrants are lazy bums that refuse to integrate. The rich countries should help the poorer ones to catch up so citizens of the latter don't need to move to the former to have a good life or safety, but, like with criminality, the citizens of poor countries need safety and money now. Also, rich countries rely on some immigrants because the local people aren't reproducing enough for the economy's liking, so they're stuck with this dilemma. \nTransit: a reason why public transit is unpopular in some places is because of the presence of people taking drugs, the likelihood of being mugged and the presence of perverts. The mugging was kinda discussed in the \"criminality session\". Dealing with the junkies relies on another long-term policy of dealing with possible economic and psychological problems, but people need to be safe now. Getting rid of the perverts relies on an even longer-term work of educating the population, maybe even wait for human evolution, as every major human culture is full of entitled cumbrains who think all women are objects for their delight.",
"date": "2024-06-10",
"id": "1dcj3yj",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: the ideals of the left rely on dangerous people not existing.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1dcj3yj/cmv_the_ideals_of_the_left_rely_on_dangerous/"
},
{
"author": "elcuervo2666",
"body": "El Salvado has some 6 million people and can be completely covered in a day in a car. His policies are popular but not universally popular and he is clearly setting himself up to be president for life. People in developed countries wouldn’t stand for just arresting every person in a poor neighborhood and holding them without charges. It’s not a practical solution. \nCapitalism won’t let rich countries help poor countries because capitalism relies on poverty to generate profits. If you see immigration as a problem there are no solutions that don’t involve militarizing borders. \nTransit: you ideas here are silly. Sometimes in the US homeless people will ride them for long periods of time to sleep. Most people in the US don’t ride them because the schedules and routes suck outside of a couple of cities.",
"date": "2024-06-10",
"id": "l7y7eah",
"parent_id": "1dcj3yj",
"score": 5,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "garaile64",
"body": "I already changed my mind on transit, as the issue is underfunding (or toxic traditions and male entitlement in case of the perverts), but I was thinking of New York, one of the very few US cities with a somewhat functional transit system, when talking about the junkies. But that's underfunding as well. About the homeless, they should be given shelter instead of allowing them to sleep on the train and make the other commuters uncomfortable.",
"date": "2024-06-10",
"id": "l7ya9kl",
"parent_id": "l7y7eah",
"score": 6,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "garaile64",
"body": "I will define \"dangerous people\" and \"ideals of the left\" throughout the text. \nCriminality: the left's solution to high crime rates is improving education and life conditions. That is effective, but it's too long-term and people need to be safe now. As some criminals can be quite cruel, people will support harsher policies, not unlike what Bukele did in El Salvador. \nImmigration: one of the main reason people, especially in Europe, oppose lax immigration is because some immigrants will keep some \"traditions\" that the host country finds barbaric, like honor killings, homophobia or forcing women to cover their whole bodies. Poland accepts very few immigrants and is safer than some Western European countries that receive a whole medium-sized city worth of immigrants per year, and some of those immigrants are lazy bums that refuse to integrate. The rich countries should help the poorer ones to catch up so citizens of the latter don't need to move to the former to have a good life or safety, but, like with criminality, the citizens of poor countries need safety and money now. Also, rich countries rely on some immigrants because the local people aren't reproducing enough for the economy's liking, so they're stuck with this dilemma. \nTransit: a reason why public transit is unpopular in some places is because of the presence of people taking drugs, the likelihood of being mugged and the presence of perverts. The mugging was kinda discussed in the \"criminality session\". Dealing with the junkies relies on another long-term policy of dealing with possible economic and psychological problems, but people need to be safe now. Getting rid of the perverts relies on an even longer-term work of educating the population, maybe even wait for human evolution, as every major human culture is full of entitled cumbrains who think all women are objects for their delight.",
"date": "2024-06-10",
"id": "1dcj3yj",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: the ideals of the left rely on dangerous people not existing.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1dcj3yj/cmv_the_ideals_of_the_left_rely_on_dangerous/"
},
{
"author": "EmpiricalAnarchism",
"body": "So let’s start by looking at your first point on crime. You disfavorably compare the policies preferred by those you identify on the left to Bukele. Let’s start with a basic question. Why is crime bad? We’ll make it even easier and focus on murder. Why is murder bad?\n\nGenerally we’d argue that murder is bad because it results in innocent people being killed, which we have some degree of moral revulsion over. If we want fewer innocent people to die, we should want lower crime rates, and specifically lower murder rates. Fairly simple logic.\n\nHas El Salvador reduced the lethality inflicted on its denizens under Bukele? The answer, simply put, is no. I don’t have the numbers on hand but I’ve done the math before and it’s pretty clear that Bukele’s policies are resulting in higher overall loss of life than the situation present when he took power, and that Bukele actually reversed a trend that started shortly before he came into office where violence rates were beginning to fall. What Bukele did was essentially legalize and make systematic significant amounts of so-called “vigilante” justice (viz., violence carried out by right wing paramilitaries against left- and liberal-leaning groups under the guise of crime control), artificially reducing the rate of murder by not counting that violence any longer, while increasing overall rates of violence experienced via making that uncounted violence even more common. And it’s true that El Salvador is a particularly violent place, but nothing Bukele has been doing is tangibly improving that, despite what polling carried out at gunpoint by his jackbooted thugs suggest.\n\nNext, we’ll look at immigration. If we put Islamophobia aside, it’s generally true in the US, which takes a much more sensible approach to migration than the European ethnostates, that immigrants are less prone to criminality than the native population. In fact, statistically speaking, immigrants are better than natives in just about every way. Moving from one country to another is a costly act that people do to improve their lives - think of how many millions of Americans and Europeans are unwilling to move a town or two over to accomplish the same and the reasoning becomes even more obvious. Plus if we want to talk about “lazy bums that refuse to integrate” we really should start with a conversation about Brexit.",
"date": "2024-06-10",
"id": "l7ygq0t",
"parent_id": "1dcj3yj",
"score": 3,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "garaile64",
"body": "1- To be fair, Salvadorians feel safer when walking on the streets now, and that's all most of them care about, believing the brutality is worth it. \n2- Both the United States and Europe have \"unauthorized\" immigrants, though. And there are also refugees, who need to leave to avoid death but can often have cultural issues with the host country. Maybe Europe pressures them more to integrate compared to the Americas.",
"date": "2024-06-10",
"id": "l7yj2rj",
"parent_id": "l7ygq0t",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "garaile64",
"body": "I will define \"dangerous people\" and \"ideals of the left\" throughout the text. \nCriminality: the left's solution to high crime rates is improving education and life conditions. That is effective, but it's too long-term and people need to be safe now. As some criminals can be quite cruel, people will support harsher policies, not unlike what Bukele did in El Salvador. \nImmigration: one of the main reason people, especially in Europe, oppose lax immigration is because some immigrants will keep some \"traditions\" that the host country finds barbaric, like honor killings, homophobia or forcing women to cover their whole bodies. Poland accepts very few immigrants and is safer than some Western European countries that receive a whole medium-sized city worth of immigrants per year, and some of those immigrants are lazy bums that refuse to integrate. The rich countries should help the poorer ones to catch up so citizens of the latter don't need to move to the former to have a good life or safety, but, like with criminality, the citizens of poor countries need safety and money now. Also, rich countries rely on some immigrants because the local people aren't reproducing enough for the economy's liking, so they're stuck with this dilemma. \nTransit: a reason why public transit is unpopular in some places is because of the presence of people taking drugs, the likelihood of being mugged and the presence of perverts. The mugging was kinda discussed in the \"criminality session\". Dealing with the junkies relies on another long-term policy of dealing with possible economic and psychological problems, but people need to be safe now. Getting rid of the perverts relies on an even longer-term work of educating the population, maybe even wait for human evolution, as every major human culture is full of entitled cumbrains who think all women are objects for their delight.",
"date": "2024-06-10",
"id": "1dcj3yj",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: the ideals of the left rely on dangerous people not existing.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1dcj3yj/cmv_the_ideals_of_the_left_rely_on_dangerous/"
},
{
"author": "Grouchy_Actuary9392",
"body": "Rich countries are rich because they have poor people who are willing to work. Countries that accept immigrants and refugees are doing it out of political gain not from the goodness of their hearts. They should not be helping poor countries, that doesn't make sense from a self interest point of view.\n\nAnd your point about refugees being lazy, I think that is incorrect. The point of immigrants and refugees is a short term loss for long term gain. It has been historically proven that immigrants become the ideal citizen by making the most money and paying the most taxes.\n\nThe ideals of the left is to fund the culture of crime, social housing, homelessness and welfare. This is the case because the government in power wants to keep getting votes. \n\nIf you are concerned about crime then it's best to leave these countries like the rich are doing. This cycle of immigration and refugees is going to continue because it is a method for the current government party to stay in power.",
"date": "2024-06-10",
"id": "l7zqie7",
"parent_id": "1dcj3yj",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "garaile64",
"body": "I will define \"dangerous people\" and \"ideals of the left\" throughout the text. \nCriminality: the left's solution to high crime rates is improving education and life conditions. That is effective, but it's too long-term and people need to be safe now. As some criminals can be quite cruel, people will support harsher policies, not unlike what Bukele did in El Salvador. \nImmigration: one of the main reason people, especially in Europe, oppose lax immigration is because some immigrants will keep some \"traditions\" that the host country finds barbaric, like honor killings, homophobia or forcing women to cover their whole bodies. Poland accepts very few immigrants and is safer than some Western European countries that receive a whole medium-sized city worth of immigrants per year, and some of those immigrants are lazy bums that refuse to integrate. The rich countries should help the poorer ones to catch up so citizens of the latter don't need to move to the former to have a good life or safety, but, like with criminality, the citizens of poor countries need safety and money now. Also, rich countries rely on some immigrants because the local people aren't reproducing enough for the economy's liking, so they're stuck with this dilemma. \nTransit: a reason why public transit is unpopular in some places is because of the presence of people taking drugs, the likelihood of being mugged and the presence of perverts. The mugging was kinda discussed in the \"criminality session\". Dealing with the junkies relies on another long-term policy of dealing with possible economic and psychological problems, but people need to be safe now. Getting rid of the perverts relies on an even longer-term work of educating the population, maybe even wait for human evolution, as every major human culture is full of entitled cumbrains who think all women are objects for their delight.",
"date": "2024-06-10",
"id": "1dcj3yj",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: the ideals of the left rely on dangerous people not existing.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1dcj3yj/cmv_the_ideals_of_the_left_rely_on_dangerous/"
},
{
"author": "team-tree-syndicate",
"body": ">Criminality: the left's solution to high crime rates is improving education and life conditions. That is effective, but it's too long-term and people need to be safe now.\n\nI don't see why both can't be done at the same time. You can improve wealth inequality and general life conditions and jail conditions while also still putting bad people behind bars. This isn't a scenario where you can only choose one, we can easily do both at the same time here.\n\n>Immigration: one of the main reason people, especially in Europe, oppose lax immigration is because some immigrants will keep some \"traditions\" that the host country finds barbaric, like honor killings, homophobia or forcing women to cover their whole bodies\n\nImmigration is a complex topic but the easy solution is to just enforce our laws as normal. It doesn't really matter what traditions an immigrant has, so long as they abide by the laws of their new home then it's not a problem. If they don't then the solution already exists. If you trace the underlying thread to most anti immigration arguments, you'll find most of the time it's the idea of \"cultural purity being at risk of contamination\" that people claim is the problem. It's safe to say that claim is not logical.\n\n>Transit: a reason why public transit is unpopular in some places is because of the presence of people taking drugs, the likelihood of being mugged and the presence of perverts\n\nThis isn't really a public transit problem. This is a city failure problem. Public transit is successful in an uncountable amount of cities, and the reason for its failures in US cities has to do with population density. Public transit is only really effective in population dense areas, and due to our cities being purposefully designed to be spread out, the two become antithetical to each other. American cities used to be densely populated with good public transit systems, before it was all torn away in the suburban explosion after the end of WW2.\n\nNone of these policies rely on low crime rates or dangerous people not existing. Nobody thinks that dangerous people don't exist. We can improve crime rates while still dealing with criminals, we can improve immigration laws while still dealing with criminals. Leftist policy is not taking the reigns off the horse so to speak, and letting people do whatever they want, at least that's how I view this as a D.",
"date": "2024-06-10",
"id": "l80f3f3",
"parent_id": "1dcj3yj",
"score": 4,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "garaile64",
"body": "I will define \"dangerous people\" and \"ideals of the left\" throughout the text. \nCriminality: the left's solution to high crime rates is improving education and life conditions. That is effective, but it's too long-term and people need to be safe now. As some criminals can be quite cruel, people will support harsher policies, not unlike what Bukele did in El Salvador. \nImmigration: one of the main reason people, especially in Europe, oppose lax immigration is because some immigrants will keep some \"traditions\" that the host country finds barbaric, like honor killings, homophobia or forcing women to cover their whole bodies. Poland accepts very few immigrants and is safer than some Western European countries that receive a whole medium-sized city worth of immigrants per year, and some of those immigrants are lazy bums that refuse to integrate. The rich countries should help the poorer ones to catch up so citizens of the latter don't need to move to the former to have a good life or safety, but, like with criminality, the citizens of poor countries need safety and money now. Also, rich countries rely on some immigrants because the local people aren't reproducing enough for the economy's liking, so they're stuck with this dilemma. \nTransit: a reason why public transit is unpopular in some places is because of the presence of people taking drugs, the likelihood of being mugged and the presence of perverts. The mugging was kinda discussed in the \"criminality session\". Dealing with the junkies relies on another long-term policy of dealing with possible economic and psychological problems, but people need to be safe now. Getting rid of the perverts relies on an even longer-term work of educating the population, maybe even wait for human evolution, as every major human culture is full of entitled cumbrains who think all women are objects for their delight.",
"date": "2024-06-10",
"id": "1dcj3yj",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 1,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: the ideals of the left rely on dangerous people not existing.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1dcj3yj/cmv_the_ideals_of_the_left_rely_on_dangerous/"
},
{
"author": "SadStudy1993",
"body": "For one when you say left what do you mean are you talking communist, liberals, democrats who exactly?",
"date": "2024-06-10",
"id": "l818bmy",
"parent_id": "1dcj3yj",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
]
]
| moderate |
[
{
"author": "bennetthaselton",
"body": "We know that large increases in rent are followed by large increases in homelessness (e.g. in Seattle where I live and where this has been very obvious in the last 15 years). But people often miss the conclusion: If rent going up leads to homelessness going up, that means the increase in homelessness was not caused by \"drugs\". Even if the newly homeless started doing drugs to cope after they became homeless, the drugs did not cause the increase in homelessness.\n\nIn fact, if rents going up is generally followed by homelessness increase, it means that almost by definition, the increase in homelessness could have been prevented by keeping the rent down. The simplest way to do this is to build new housing (either government or private-sector). You *could* keep rents down by setting rent control, but this solution has drawbacks since it disincentivizes people from building new housing. But however you do it, it seems clear that to prevent an increase in homelessness due to rent increase, all you have to do is keep the rent from increasing.\n\nOn other hand, once a person is *already* homeless, getting them off the streets and back into housing is much harder -- they may now have addiction issues or mental health issues aggravated by living on the streets, they now have a gap in their housing history, a gap in their employment history, etc.\n\nSo when a city attempts to reduce homelessness \\*overall\\*, they're faced with an almost unsolvable problem, since it's so hard to reduce the number of existing cases.\n\nSo instead, judge a city's \"success\" based on reduction in the number of \\*new\\* homeless cases. \\[Edited to clarify: this refers to people who used to live in that city and then became homeless. The city should not be penalized if people become homeless in other cities and then move to your city.\\]\n\nThis will incentivize a city to spend their resources where they will make the most difference (under the assumption that, for example, for a given fixed number of dollars, you can choose between preventing 100 new cases of homelessness). Provide humanitarian services to the existing homeless population, but when looking at the costs of getting them back into housing, the blunt truth is that we can help more people (and reduce homelessness more overall) by putting that effort into preventing new cases of homelessness. CMV.\n\nEdited to add: When I say \"city's policies\" this can be extended to refer to government policies more generally, since the anti-homelessness efforts might not be primarily the responsiblity of the city, even if the increase in homelessness is much more visible in a city like Seattle than in the surrounding areas.",
"date": "2024-06-12",
"id": "1dehxoa",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 78,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: it's relatively easy to prevent an increase in new homelessness, but relatively hard to get existing homeless of the streets. So, judge a city's anti-homelessness efforts based on the number of *new* cases they prevent.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1dehxoa/cmv_its_relatively_easy_to_prevent_an_increase_in/"
},
{
"author": "Crash927",
"body": "Are you speaking from a particular jurisdiction?\n\nWhere I’m from, housing and homelessness are primarily the responsibility of provincial government, so I’m not sure I would judge a city’s success on something that they have few mechanisms — and less funding — to actually influence.",
"date": "2024-06-12",
"id": "l8c17re",
"parent_id": "1dehxoa",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "bennetthaselton",
"body": "**Δ**\n\nYou're right, so I shouldn't have said \"city\" specifically, I have updated to clarify.",
"date": "2024-06-12",
"id": "l8c91c9",
"parent_id": "l8c17re",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "DeltaBot",
"body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Crash927 ([8∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Crash927)).\n\n^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
"date": "2024-06-12",
"id": "l8c99tv",
"parent_id": "l8c91c9",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
]
| [
[
{
"author": "bennetthaselton",
"body": "We know that large increases in rent are followed by large increases in homelessness (e.g. in Seattle where I live and where this has been very obvious in the last 15 years). But people often miss the conclusion: If rent going up leads to homelessness going up, that means the increase in homelessness was not caused by \"drugs\". Even if the newly homeless started doing drugs to cope after they became homeless, the drugs did not cause the increase in homelessness.\n\nIn fact, if rents going up is generally followed by homelessness increase, it means that almost by definition, the increase in homelessness could have been prevented by keeping the rent down. The simplest way to do this is to build new housing (either government or private-sector). You *could* keep rents down by setting rent control, but this solution has drawbacks since it disincentivizes people from building new housing. But however you do it, it seems clear that to prevent an increase in homelessness due to rent increase, all you have to do is keep the rent from increasing.\n\nOn other hand, once a person is *already* homeless, getting them off the streets and back into housing is much harder -- they may now have addiction issues or mental health issues aggravated by living on the streets, they now have a gap in their housing history, a gap in their employment history, etc.\n\nSo when a city attempts to reduce homelessness \\*overall\\*, they're faced with an almost unsolvable problem, since it's so hard to reduce the number of existing cases.\n\nSo instead, judge a city's \"success\" based on reduction in the number of \\*new\\* homeless cases. \\[Edited to clarify: this refers to people who used to live in that city and then became homeless. The city should not be penalized if people become homeless in other cities and then move to your city.\\]\n\nThis will incentivize a city to spend their resources where they will make the most difference (under the assumption that, for example, for a given fixed number of dollars, you can choose between preventing 100 new cases of homelessness). Provide humanitarian services to the existing homeless population, but when looking at the costs of getting them back into housing, the blunt truth is that we can help more people (and reduce homelessness more overall) by putting that effort into preventing new cases of homelessness. CMV.\n\nEdited to add: When I say \"city's policies\" this can be extended to refer to government policies more generally, since the anti-homelessness efforts might not be primarily the responsiblity of the city, even if the increase in homelessness is much more visible in a city like Seattle than in the surrounding areas.",
"date": "2024-06-12",
"id": "1dehxoa",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 78,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: it's relatively easy to prevent an increase in new homelessness, but relatively hard to get existing homeless of the streets. So, judge a city's anti-homelessness efforts based on the number of *new* cases they prevent.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1dehxoa/cmv_its_relatively_easy_to_prevent_an_increase_in/"
},
{
"author": "LapazGracie",
"body": "Now I often rail against USSR as having an atrocious idiotic economic system. But there were some things they did really well.\n\n1) General education. Mostly because they were very strict disciplinaries and had very high education standards.\n\n2) Dealing with homeless.\n\nThis is what they did. \n\nFirst of all you have to understand that while public transportation was very cheap. You couldn't get on there smelling like shit. You'd get thrown out. And pretty much nobody had a car so public transport was the way to get around. The roads were trash, most people used busses and eletrichkas.\n\nSo say they found a homeless man in Moscow. They would send that guy away in a 100KM radius away from Moscow. Remember public transit is all you got and they won't let you on. So it's not so easy to get back.\n\nIn his new home he would have free food, free housing, free medicine and free clothing. Everything would be taken care of. But all of it would be awful quality. The cheapest shit, old ass equipment. They would also be forced to work. They got paid a little bit but mostly the work was there to keep them busy.\n\nNow either you cleaned your act up. Or you stayed in that shithole forever. It was obviously well equipped to deal with alcoholism. Drug addiction was less common but they had \"treatment\" for that (mostly cold turkey). \n\nAnyway this was a very effective system. It was brutal enough to where people didn't really want to become homeless at all costs. Or at least they stayed the fuck away from major metro areas if they did. And on top of that the regular citizens almost never had to interact with them.",
"date": "2024-06-12",
"id": "l8c0190",
"parent_id": "1dehxoa",
"score": 13,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "pigeon888",
"body": "Sounds like prison",
"date": "2024-06-12",
"id": "l8c1ag1",
"parent_id": "l8c0190",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "bennetthaselton",
"body": "We know that large increases in rent are followed by large increases in homelessness (e.g. in Seattle where I live and where this has been very obvious in the last 15 years). But people often miss the conclusion: If rent going up leads to homelessness going up, that means the increase in homelessness was not caused by \"drugs\". Even if the newly homeless started doing drugs to cope after they became homeless, the drugs did not cause the increase in homelessness.\n\nIn fact, if rents going up is generally followed by homelessness increase, it means that almost by definition, the increase in homelessness could have been prevented by keeping the rent down. The simplest way to do this is to build new housing (either government or private-sector). You *could* keep rents down by setting rent control, but this solution has drawbacks since it disincentivizes people from building new housing. But however you do it, it seems clear that to prevent an increase in homelessness due to rent increase, all you have to do is keep the rent from increasing.\n\nOn other hand, once a person is *already* homeless, getting them off the streets and back into housing is much harder -- they may now have addiction issues or mental health issues aggravated by living on the streets, they now have a gap in their housing history, a gap in their employment history, etc.\n\nSo when a city attempts to reduce homelessness \\*overall\\*, they're faced with an almost unsolvable problem, since it's so hard to reduce the number of existing cases.\n\nSo instead, judge a city's \"success\" based on reduction in the number of \\*new\\* homeless cases. \\[Edited to clarify: this refers to people who used to live in that city and then became homeless. The city should not be penalized if people become homeless in other cities and then move to your city.\\]\n\nThis will incentivize a city to spend their resources where they will make the most difference (under the assumption that, for example, for a given fixed number of dollars, you can choose between preventing 100 new cases of homelessness). Provide humanitarian services to the existing homeless population, but when looking at the costs of getting them back into housing, the blunt truth is that we can help more people (and reduce homelessness more overall) by putting that effort into preventing new cases of homelessness. CMV.\n\nEdited to add: When I say \"city's policies\" this can be extended to refer to government policies more generally, since the anti-homelessness efforts might not be primarily the responsiblity of the city, even if the increase in homelessness is much more visible in a city like Seattle than in the surrounding areas.",
"date": "2024-06-12",
"id": "1dehxoa",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 78,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: it's relatively easy to prevent an increase in new homelessness, but relatively hard to get existing homeless of the streets. So, judge a city's anti-homelessness efforts based on the number of *new* cases they prevent.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1dehxoa/cmv_its_relatively_easy_to_prevent_an_increase_in/"
},
{
"author": "Bobbob34",
"body": "We know that large increases in rent are followed by large increases in homelessness (e.g. in Seattle where I live and where this has been very obvious in the last 15 years). But people often miss the conclusion: If rent going up leads to homelessness going up, that means the increase in homelessness was not caused by \"drugs\". Even if the newly homeless started doing drugs to cope after they became homeless, the drugs did not cause the increase in homelessness.\n\nI don't think anyone thinks homelessness is a single-cause problem at any level. \n\nHowever, you're making huge assumptions here. Mainly that an aggregate increase in rent would cause an increase in homelessness AND that that increase would thus somehow be unrelated to drug use. \n\nThose are just random assumptions. An increase in average rent can have a ton of causes. Widespread drug use can be one of those, as people may default, may cause issues in properties, etc. \n\nAlso those may be loosely- to un-related. Prices can rise and thus people who spend more on drugs, or lose their jobs due to drug use, or lose their jobs for other reasons and thus do more drugs, and on and on, can end up homeless and it's not because rent increased.",
"date": "2024-06-12",
"id": "l8c0zmw",
"parent_id": "1dehxoa",
"score": 13,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "pigeon888",
"body": "This is true. OP's causal model is incomplete.",
"date": "2024-06-12",
"id": "l8c1fzi",
"parent_id": "l8c0zmw",
"score": 6,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "bennetthaselton",
"body": "We know that large increases in rent are followed by large increases in homelessness (e.g. in Seattle where I live and where this has been very obvious in the last 15 years). But people often miss the conclusion: If rent going up leads to homelessness going up, that means the increase in homelessness was not caused by \"drugs\". Even if the newly homeless started doing drugs to cope after they became homeless, the drugs did not cause the increase in homelessness.\n\nIn fact, if rents going up is generally followed by homelessness increase, it means that almost by definition, the increase in homelessness could have been prevented by keeping the rent down. The simplest way to do this is to build new housing (either government or private-sector). You *could* keep rents down by setting rent control, but this solution has drawbacks since it disincentivizes people from building new housing. But however you do it, it seems clear that to prevent an increase in homelessness due to rent increase, all you have to do is keep the rent from increasing.\n\nOn other hand, once a person is *already* homeless, getting them off the streets and back into housing is much harder -- they may now have addiction issues or mental health issues aggravated by living on the streets, they now have a gap in their housing history, a gap in their employment history, etc.\n\nSo when a city attempts to reduce homelessness \\*overall\\*, they're faced with an almost unsolvable problem, since it's so hard to reduce the number of existing cases.\n\nSo instead, judge a city's \"success\" based on reduction in the number of \\*new\\* homeless cases. \\[Edited to clarify: this refers to people who used to live in that city and then became homeless. The city should not be penalized if people become homeless in other cities and then move to your city.\\]\n\nThis will incentivize a city to spend their resources where they will make the most difference (under the assumption that, for example, for a given fixed number of dollars, you can choose between preventing 100 new cases of homelessness). Provide humanitarian services to the existing homeless population, but when looking at the costs of getting them back into housing, the blunt truth is that we can help more people (and reduce homelessness more overall) by putting that effort into preventing new cases of homelessness. CMV.\n\nEdited to add: When I say \"city's policies\" this can be extended to refer to government policies more generally, since the anti-homelessness efforts might not be primarily the responsiblity of the city, even if the increase in homelessness is much more visible in a city like Seattle than in the surrounding areas.",
"date": "2024-06-12",
"id": "1dehxoa",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 78,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: it's relatively easy to prevent an increase in new homelessness, but relatively hard to get existing homeless of the streets. So, judge a city's anti-homelessness efforts based on the number of *new* cases they prevent.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1dehxoa/cmv_its_relatively_easy_to_prevent_an_increase_in/"
},
{
"author": "TemperatureThese7909",
"body": "I would argue it's actually very easy to \"solve homelessness\". \n\n\nKill all the homeless. Put all the homeless on buses and don't let them come back. Burn down the tent cities. Jail all the homeless. Etc. \n\n\nWhat's hard is to solve homelessness ethically. \n\n\nWhether we are using prevention or reversal as our metric, in my view it doesn't count if it comes through an immoral means. ",
"date": "2024-06-12",
"id": "l8c1hnr",
"parent_id": "1dehxoa",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "yyzjertl",
"body": "> What's hard is to solve homelessness ethically. \n\nThat's not especially hard either: just provide them with housing. Nothing unethical about giving someone an apartment.",
"date": "2024-06-12",
"id": "l8c2rmj",
"parent_id": "l8c1hnr",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "bennetthaselton",
"body": "We know that large increases in rent are followed by large increases in homelessness (e.g. in Seattle where I live and where this has been very obvious in the last 15 years). But people often miss the conclusion: If rent going up leads to homelessness going up, that means the increase in homelessness was not caused by \"drugs\". Even if the newly homeless started doing drugs to cope after they became homeless, the drugs did not cause the increase in homelessness.\n\nIn fact, if rents going up is generally followed by homelessness increase, it means that almost by definition, the increase in homelessness could have been prevented by keeping the rent down. The simplest way to do this is to build new housing (either government or private-sector). You *could* keep rents down by setting rent control, but this solution has drawbacks since it disincentivizes people from building new housing. But however you do it, it seems clear that to prevent an increase in homelessness due to rent increase, all you have to do is keep the rent from increasing.\n\nOn other hand, once a person is *already* homeless, getting them off the streets and back into housing is much harder -- they may now have addiction issues or mental health issues aggravated by living on the streets, they now have a gap in their housing history, a gap in their employment history, etc.\n\nSo when a city attempts to reduce homelessness \\*overall\\*, they're faced with an almost unsolvable problem, since it's so hard to reduce the number of existing cases.\n\nSo instead, judge a city's \"success\" based on reduction in the number of \\*new\\* homeless cases. \\[Edited to clarify: this refers to people who used to live in that city and then became homeless. The city should not be penalized if people become homeless in other cities and then move to your city.\\]\n\nThis will incentivize a city to spend their resources where they will make the most difference (under the assumption that, for example, for a given fixed number of dollars, you can choose between preventing 100 new cases of homelessness). Provide humanitarian services to the existing homeless population, but when looking at the costs of getting them back into housing, the blunt truth is that we can help more people (and reduce homelessness more overall) by putting that effort into preventing new cases of homelessness. CMV.\n\nEdited to add: When I say \"city's policies\" this can be extended to refer to government policies more generally, since the anti-homelessness efforts might not be primarily the responsiblity of the city, even if the increase in homelessness is much more visible in a city like Seattle than in the surrounding areas.",
"date": "2024-06-12",
"id": "1dehxoa",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 78,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: it's relatively easy to prevent an increase in new homelessness, but relatively hard to get existing homeless of the streets. So, judge a city's anti-homelessness efforts based on the number of *new* cases they prevent.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1dehxoa/cmv_its_relatively_easy_to_prevent_an_increase_in/"
},
{
"author": "orthranus",
"body": "Why do richer cities have higher per capita homelessness rates than poorer cities? Because homelessness is fundamentally a dynamic problem where people in areas with work deficits go to places with work surpluses. Because housing adapts more slowly than most other sectors you get a level of homelessness. Even if government programs exist they too must chase the emerging data and play predict the trend games just as the private sector does. So, even with a socially optimal supply-side policy, there will be a level of homelessness, and those cases must also be judged as part of a city's policy. There is no point of no return for a homeless person, and it is a society's duty, and it's frankly cheaper, to help those in crisis.\n\nNow on the subject of rent control, there is a quote from Von Thüenen, a German agronomist, \"capital that is not maintained soon ceases to be capital\". Rent control is one of the worst long run choices for housing because the private sector will basically stop producing at rent levels where they could invest their money elsewhere. It isn't a bad idea to limit the rate at which rent can rise because it shelters renters from economic fluctuations. The big winner policies are those which twart Nimbyism and grant developers and buyers lots of freedom of choice and command side big block housing projects. On the latter look at the history of Vienna on the former look to the successes of my home city of Edmonton.",
"date": "2024-06-12",
"id": "l8cajc6",
"parent_id": "1dehxoa",
"score": 5,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "bennetthaselton",
"body": "We know that large increases in rent are followed by large increases in homelessness (e.g. in Seattle where I live and where this has been very obvious in the last 15 years). But people often miss the conclusion: If rent going up leads to homelessness going up, that means the increase in homelessness was not caused by \"drugs\". Even if the newly homeless started doing drugs to cope after they became homeless, the drugs did not cause the increase in homelessness.\n\nIn fact, if rents going up is generally followed by homelessness increase, it means that almost by definition, the increase in homelessness could have been prevented by keeping the rent down. The simplest way to do this is to build new housing (either government or private-sector). You *could* keep rents down by setting rent control, but this solution has drawbacks since it disincentivizes people from building new housing. But however you do it, it seems clear that to prevent an increase in homelessness due to rent increase, all you have to do is keep the rent from increasing.\n\nOn other hand, once a person is *already* homeless, getting them off the streets and back into housing is much harder -- they may now have addiction issues or mental health issues aggravated by living on the streets, they now have a gap in their housing history, a gap in their employment history, etc.\n\nSo when a city attempts to reduce homelessness \\*overall\\*, they're faced with an almost unsolvable problem, since it's so hard to reduce the number of existing cases.\n\nSo instead, judge a city's \"success\" based on reduction in the number of \\*new\\* homeless cases. \\[Edited to clarify: this refers to people who used to live in that city and then became homeless. The city should not be penalized if people become homeless in other cities and then move to your city.\\]\n\nThis will incentivize a city to spend their resources where they will make the most difference (under the assumption that, for example, for a given fixed number of dollars, you can choose between preventing 100 new cases of homelessness). Provide humanitarian services to the existing homeless population, but when looking at the costs of getting them back into housing, the blunt truth is that we can help more people (and reduce homelessness more overall) by putting that effort into preventing new cases of homelessness. CMV.\n\nEdited to add: When I say \"city's policies\" this can be extended to refer to government policies more generally, since the anti-homelessness efforts might not be primarily the responsiblity of the city, even if the increase in homelessness is much more visible in a city like Seattle than in the surrounding areas.",
"date": "2024-06-12",
"id": "1dehxoa",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 78,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: it's relatively easy to prevent an increase in new homelessness, but relatively hard to get existing homeless of the streets. So, judge a city's anti-homelessness efforts based on the number of *new* cases they prevent.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1dehxoa/cmv_its_relatively_easy_to_prevent_an_increase_in/"
},
{
"author": "PixieBaronicsi",
"body": "Rent rises are not really something that the “city” has control of in the short term. If you disagree, can you think of a city that has prevented rent increases by suing something within the city’s control? Other factors that lead to people becoming homeless in the first place, like unemployment and cracks in the welfare system are usually more to do with macroeconomic conditions and national government policy (or state, depending on which country)\n\nOn the other hand drug rehabilitation schemes and emergency accommodation for the homeless generally do fall within the remit of municipal government, and therefore the ability of a city to help the homeless through these schemes is a much more reasonable judge of the city’s competence than those factors that lead to people becoming homeless in the first place",
"date": "2024-06-12",
"id": "l8cdu02",
"parent_id": "1dehxoa",
"score": 8,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "bennetthaselton",
"body": "The city can't block rent rises but it can offer assistance to people who are affected by rising rents. It seems like you could pick some baseline rent where under \"normal\" conditions it would rise a certain amount every year, but then if it rises significantly above that, give vouchers to people to help them cover the rent increases. From the tenant's point of view it's like rent control, except that instead of forcing all of the costs on the landlord, it spreads the cost more evenly among taxpayers in proportion to their ability to pay (which seems a lot more fair).",
"date": "2024-06-12",
"id": "l8cfg28",
"parent_id": "l8cdu02",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "bennetthaselton",
"body": "We know that large increases in rent are followed by large increases in homelessness (e.g. in Seattle where I live and where this has been very obvious in the last 15 years). But people often miss the conclusion: If rent going up leads to homelessness going up, that means the increase in homelessness was not caused by \"drugs\". Even if the newly homeless started doing drugs to cope after they became homeless, the drugs did not cause the increase in homelessness.\n\nIn fact, if rents going up is generally followed by homelessness increase, it means that almost by definition, the increase in homelessness could have been prevented by keeping the rent down. The simplest way to do this is to build new housing (either government or private-sector). You *could* keep rents down by setting rent control, but this solution has drawbacks since it disincentivizes people from building new housing. But however you do it, it seems clear that to prevent an increase in homelessness due to rent increase, all you have to do is keep the rent from increasing.\n\nOn other hand, once a person is *already* homeless, getting them off the streets and back into housing is much harder -- they may now have addiction issues or mental health issues aggravated by living on the streets, they now have a gap in their housing history, a gap in their employment history, etc.\n\nSo when a city attempts to reduce homelessness \\*overall\\*, they're faced with an almost unsolvable problem, since it's so hard to reduce the number of existing cases.\n\nSo instead, judge a city's \"success\" based on reduction in the number of \\*new\\* homeless cases. \\[Edited to clarify: this refers to people who used to live in that city and then became homeless. The city should not be penalized if people become homeless in other cities and then move to your city.\\]\n\nThis will incentivize a city to spend their resources where they will make the most difference (under the assumption that, for example, for a given fixed number of dollars, you can choose between preventing 100 new cases of homelessness). Provide humanitarian services to the existing homeless population, but when looking at the costs of getting them back into housing, the blunt truth is that we can help more people (and reduce homelessness more overall) by putting that effort into preventing new cases of homelessness. CMV.\n\nEdited to add: When I say \"city's policies\" this can be extended to refer to government policies more generally, since the anti-homelessness efforts might not be primarily the responsiblity of the city, even if the increase in homelessness is much more visible in a city like Seattle than in the surrounding areas.",
"date": "2024-06-12",
"id": "1dehxoa",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 78,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: it's relatively easy to prevent an increase in new homelessness, but relatively hard to get existing homeless of the streets. So, judge a city's anti-homelessness efforts based on the number of *new* cases they prevent.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1dehxoa/cmv_its_relatively_easy_to_prevent_an_increase_in/"
},
{
"author": "Shoddy_Young7565",
"body": "As long as we share our streets with people with a huge sense of entitlement, we will never get rid of homelessness. if the tinted community helped each other the world would be a better place",
"date": "2024-06-12",
"id": "l8culr9",
"parent_id": "1dehxoa",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "changemyview-ModTeam",
"body": "Sorry, u/Shoddy_Young7565 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). \n\nIf you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20Shoddy_Young7565&message=Shoddy_Young7565%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\\[their%20comment\\]\\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1dehxoa/-/l8culr9/\\)%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
"date": "2024-06-13",
"id": "l8fig6t",
"parent_id": "l8culr9",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "bennetthaselton",
"body": "We know that large increases in rent are followed by large increases in homelessness (e.g. in Seattle where I live and where this has been very obvious in the last 15 years). But people often miss the conclusion: If rent going up leads to homelessness going up, that means the increase in homelessness was not caused by \"drugs\". Even if the newly homeless started doing drugs to cope after they became homeless, the drugs did not cause the increase in homelessness.\n\nIn fact, if rents going up is generally followed by homelessness increase, it means that almost by definition, the increase in homelessness could have been prevented by keeping the rent down. The simplest way to do this is to build new housing (either government or private-sector). You *could* keep rents down by setting rent control, but this solution has drawbacks since it disincentivizes people from building new housing. But however you do it, it seems clear that to prevent an increase in homelessness due to rent increase, all you have to do is keep the rent from increasing.\n\nOn other hand, once a person is *already* homeless, getting them off the streets and back into housing is much harder -- they may now have addiction issues or mental health issues aggravated by living on the streets, they now have a gap in their housing history, a gap in their employment history, etc.\n\nSo when a city attempts to reduce homelessness \\*overall\\*, they're faced with an almost unsolvable problem, since it's so hard to reduce the number of existing cases.\n\nSo instead, judge a city's \"success\" based on reduction in the number of \\*new\\* homeless cases. \\[Edited to clarify: this refers to people who used to live in that city and then became homeless. The city should not be penalized if people become homeless in other cities and then move to your city.\\]\n\nThis will incentivize a city to spend their resources where they will make the most difference (under the assumption that, for example, for a given fixed number of dollars, you can choose between preventing 100 new cases of homelessness). Provide humanitarian services to the existing homeless population, but when looking at the costs of getting them back into housing, the blunt truth is that we can help more people (and reduce homelessness more overall) by putting that effort into preventing new cases of homelessness. CMV.\n\nEdited to add: When I say \"city's policies\" this can be extended to refer to government policies more generally, since the anti-homelessness efforts might not be primarily the responsiblity of the city, even if the increase in homelessness is much more visible in a city like Seattle than in the surrounding areas.",
"date": "2024-06-12",
"id": "1dehxoa",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 78,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: it's relatively easy to prevent an increase in new homelessness, but relatively hard to get existing homeless of the streets. So, judge a city's anti-homelessness efforts based on the number of *new* cases they prevent.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1dehxoa/cmv_its_relatively_easy_to_prevent_an_increase_in/"
},
{
"author": "4zero4error31",
"body": "Actually it's extremely easy to get homeless people off the streets, and cheaper than letting them remain homeless too! \n\nHomelessness is almost always caused by: Lack of money, lack of available housing, or disease of some kind (including medical debt in the US, mental illness, addiction, etc.) All three can be solved by offering free housing to homeless people, giving everyone a universal basic income, and offering free therapy/medical care. Sure, that sounds insane and expensive and \\*socialist,\\* but it's also a proven fact that it works. And what's even better is IT'S CHEAPER THAN LETTING THEM STAY HOMELESS!! Between the cost of emergency room visits, healthcare, police expenditures, and loss to crime, you actually SAVE money by tens of thousands of dollars per person. A Colorado study found that the average homeless person cost the state forty-three thousand dollars a year, while housing that person would cost just seventeen thousand dollars.\n\nUtah, yes Utah, did it and it cut homelessness by 74% and saved the state money. : [https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/09/22/home-free](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/09/22/home-free)\n\nFinland does it and it's saving them money too: [https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/a-paradigm-shift-in-social-policy-how-finland-conquered-homelessness-a-ba1a531e-8129-4c71-94fc-7268c5b109d9](https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/a-paradigm-shift-in-social-policy-how-finland-conquered-homelessness-a-ba1a531e-8129-4c71-94fc-7268c5b109d9)\n\n \nThe simple truth is that having homeless people is a choice, one made out of ignorance or prejudice. We see homeless people as immoral, as weak, as failures, and so we say they deserve their punishment for whatever they obviously must have done to deserve this. It's a lie we've told ourselves for so long we can hardly even imagine there's another way, but it' still a lie. The people in charge choose to have homeless people because of protestant work ethics or because they want the middle and lower classes to keep producing out of fear of what awaits them if they stop.",
"date": "2024-06-12",
"id": "l8d59jq",
"parent_id": "1dehxoa",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "changemyview-ModTeam",
"body": "Sorry, u/4zero4error31 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). \n\nIf you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%204zero4error31&message=4zero4error31%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\\[their%20comment\\]\\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1dehxoa/-/l8d59jq/\\)%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
"date": "2024-06-13",
"id": "l8fi7ln",
"parent_id": "l8d59jq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "bennetthaselton",
"body": "We know that large increases in rent are followed by large increases in homelessness (e.g. in Seattle where I live and where this has been very obvious in the last 15 years). But people often miss the conclusion: If rent going up leads to homelessness going up, that means the increase in homelessness was not caused by \"drugs\". Even if the newly homeless started doing drugs to cope after they became homeless, the drugs did not cause the increase in homelessness.\n\nIn fact, if rents going up is generally followed by homelessness increase, it means that almost by definition, the increase in homelessness could have been prevented by keeping the rent down. The simplest way to do this is to build new housing (either government or private-sector). You *could* keep rents down by setting rent control, but this solution has drawbacks since it disincentivizes people from building new housing. But however you do it, it seems clear that to prevent an increase in homelessness due to rent increase, all you have to do is keep the rent from increasing.\n\nOn other hand, once a person is *already* homeless, getting them off the streets and back into housing is much harder -- they may now have addiction issues or mental health issues aggravated by living on the streets, they now have a gap in their housing history, a gap in their employment history, etc.\n\nSo when a city attempts to reduce homelessness \\*overall\\*, they're faced with an almost unsolvable problem, since it's so hard to reduce the number of existing cases.\n\nSo instead, judge a city's \"success\" based on reduction in the number of \\*new\\* homeless cases. \\[Edited to clarify: this refers to people who used to live in that city and then became homeless. The city should not be penalized if people become homeless in other cities and then move to your city.\\]\n\nThis will incentivize a city to spend their resources where they will make the most difference (under the assumption that, for example, for a given fixed number of dollars, you can choose between preventing 100 new cases of homelessness). Provide humanitarian services to the existing homeless population, but when looking at the costs of getting them back into housing, the blunt truth is that we can help more people (and reduce homelessness more overall) by putting that effort into preventing new cases of homelessness. CMV.\n\nEdited to add: When I say \"city's policies\" this can be extended to refer to government policies more generally, since the anti-homelessness efforts might not be primarily the responsiblity of the city, even if the increase in homelessness is much more visible in a city like Seattle than in the surrounding areas.",
"date": "2024-06-12",
"id": "1dehxoa",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 78,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: it's relatively easy to prevent an increase in new homelessness, but relatively hard to get existing homeless of the streets. So, judge a city's anti-homelessness efforts based on the number of *new* cases they prevent.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1dehxoa/cmv_its_relatively_easy_to_prevent_an_increase_in/"
},
{
"author": "fervent_muffin",
"body": "I can agree with this. I worked in this field for awhile and I came to the conclusion that our systems/resources were great at stopping situationally homeless from becoming chronically homeless, but it was not well equipped at elevating chronically homeless into regular society. \n\n\nBecause of this, I've considered the idea of a new type of institutionalization, circa pre-Regan, but with much better oversight and ethics for the chronically homeless who have demonstrated they do not want to be participants of \"regular society\". Letting them occupy the public space while not playing by the rest of societies rules is a recipe for disaster as we have observed. The other day, I had a coworker get randomly stabbed in the neck by one of these people. \n\n\nBut those who would say just put them in jail or get them off the street misunderstand the issue. Both the left and the right prescribe solutions destined to fail because the lack a grasp on some basic fundamentals of this subject. I doubt this idea will gain any political traction, but in my professional opinion, it's the most likely to bring us to a mutually satisfactory solution. ",
"date": "2024-06-13",
"id": "l8dvb28",
"parent_id": "1dehxoa",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "bennetthaselton",
"body": "We know that large increases in rent are followed by large increases in homelessness (e.g. in Seattle where I live and where this has been very obvious in the last 15 years). But people often miss the conclusion: If rent going up leads to homelessness going up, that means the increase in homelessness was not caused by \"drugs\". Even if the newly homeless started doing drugs to cope after they became homeless, the drugs did not cause the increase in homelessness.\n\nIn fact, if rents going up is generally followed by homelessness increase, it means that almost by definition, the increase in homelessness could have been prevented by keeping the rent down. The simplest way to do this is to build new housing (either government or private-sector). You *could* keep rents down by setting rent control, but this solution has drawbacks since it disincentivizes people from building new housing. But however you do it, it seems clear that to prevent an increase in homelessness due to rent increase, all you have to do is keep the rent from increasing.\n\nOn other hand, once a person is *already* homeless, getting them off the streets and back into housing is much harder -- they may now have addiction issues or mental health issues aggravated by living on the streets, they now have a gap in their housing history, a gap in their employment history, etc.\n\nSo when a city attempts to reduce homelessness \\*overall\\*, they're faced with an almost unsolvable problem, since it's so hard to reduce the number of existing cases.\n\nSo instead, judge a city's \"success\" based on reduction in the number of \\*new\\* homeless cases. \\[Edited to clarify: this refers to people who used to live in that city and then became homeless. The city should not be penalized if people become homeless in other cities and then move to your city.\\]\n\nThis will incentivize a city to spend their resources where they will make the most difference (under the assumption that, for example, for a given fixed number of dollars, you can choose between preventing 100 new cases of homelessness). Provide humanitarian services to the existing homeless population, but when looking at the costs of getting them back into housing, the blunt truth is that we can help more people (and reduce homelessness more overall) by putting that effort into preventing new cases of homelessness. CMV.\n\nEdited to add: When I say \"city's policies\" this can be extended to refer to government policies more generally, since the anti-homelessness efforts might not be primarily the responsiblity of the city, even if the increase in homelessness is much more visible in a city like Seattle than in the surrounding areas.",
"date": "2024-06-12",
"id": "1dehxoa",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 78,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: it's relatively easy to prevent an increase in new homelessness, but relatively hard to get existing homeless of the streets. So, judge a city's anti-homelessness efforts based on the number of *new* cases they prevent.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1dehxoa/cmv_its_relatively_easy_to_prevent_an_increase_in/"
},
{
"author": "Basic-Reputation605",
"body": "Looking at new homeless cases doesn't give you an accurate measure of how they handle the crisis.\n\nFor the purpise of this post the crisis can be simplified with two parts, one they don't have homes, two they aren't functioning members of society.\n\nHomeless people typically travel too places that are more accommodating to their lifestyles. More social programs, more opportunities for free stuff and continuation of their lifestyle. They migrate massively increasing homelessness in those areas.\n\nTypically but not always these same.plaves have social programs offering extremely cheap or free housing. These programs do not solve the second part of the homeless crisis being that they still don't contribute to society. All this does is prevent them from falling under the homeless metric skewing the number while they still live the homeless lifestyle but now with a roof. Why be a bum with no roof when you could be a bum with one? This skews the numbers so yes there's less people without \"homes\", but these people still aren't fully functioning members of society they just have a roof now they don't have to work.to pay for. This doesn't solve the problem at all it hides it. I get that it's ethical to provide homes but all we do is end up lying to ourselves through numbers.",
"date": "2024-06-13",
"id": "l8eyy89",
"parent_id": "1dehxoa",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "bennetthaselton",
"body": "We know that large increases in rent are followed by large increases in homelessness (e.g. in Seattle where I live and where this has been very obvious in the last 15 years). But people often miss the conclusion: If rent going up leads to homelessness going up, that means the increase in homelessness was not caused by \"drugs\". Even if the newly homeless started doing drugs to cope after they became homeless, the drugs did not cause the increase in homelessness.\n\nIn fact, if rents going up is generally followed by homelessness increase, it means that almost by definition, the increase in homelessness could have been prevented by keeping the rent down. The simplest way to do this is to build new housing (either government or private-sector). You *could* keep rents down by setting rent control, but this solution has drawbacks since it disincentivizes people from building new housing. But however you do it, it seems clear that to prevent an increase in homelessness due to rent increase, all you have to do is keep the rent from increasing.\n\nOn other hand, once a person is *already* homeless, getting them off the streets and back into housing is much harder -- they may now have addiction issues or mental health issues aggravated by living on the streets, they now have a gap in their housing history, a gap in their employment history, etc.\n\nSo when a city attempts to reduce homelessness \\*overall\\*, they're faced with an almost unsolvable problem, since it's so hard to reduce the number of existing cases.\n\nSo instead, judge a city's \"success\" based on reduction in the number of \\*new\\* homeless cases. \\[Edited to clarify: this refers to people who used to live in that city and then became homeless. The city should not be penalized if people become homeless in other cities and then move to your city.\\]\n\nThis will incentivize a city to spend their resources where they will make the most difference (under the assumption that, for example, for a given fixed number of dollars, you can choose between preventing 100 new cases of homelessness). Provide humanitarian services to the existing homeless population, but when looking at the costs of getting them back into housing, the blunt truth is that we can help more people (and reduce homelessness more overall) by putting that effort into preventing new cases of homelessness. CMV.\n\nEdited to add: When I say \"city's policies\" this can be extended to refer to government policies more generally, since the anti-homelessness efforts might not be primarily the responsiblity of the city, even if the increase in homelessness is much more visible in a city like Seattle than in the surrounding areas.",
"date": "2024-06-12",
"id": "1dehxoa",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 78,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: it's relatively easy to prevent an increase in new homelessness, but relatively hard to get existing homeless of the streets. So, judge a city's anti-homelessness efforts based on the number of *new* cases they prevent.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1dehxoa/cmv_its_relatively_easy_to_prevent_an_increase_in/"
},
{
"author": "icansawyou",
"body": "What you are writing about is not just a matter of rent. Obviously, the people who found themselves on the street had problems.: they were unable to pay for housing. That is, they did not have the means. And that's where a lot of questions arise. \n \nWhat influences the amount of rent for housing? How can this factor be influenced without prejudice to the landlord? How high was the income of these people? Why didn't this person change his place of residence to optimize expenses? Why did the authorities (in the broadest sense of the word) not worry about the fact that a person finds himself on the street? \n \nProbably, to answer these and other questions, it would be great to conduct research on this topic or refer to one if it has already been conducted. \n \nI am not from the USA myself, but I have seen videos where crowds of homeless people roam the American streets. It is, of course, a terrible sight. I can only assume that the homeless are some kind of symptom of some kind of structural and systemic error within your society and how it develops socially and economically. I'm sorry if my final conclusion seems trivial and obvious to you.",
"date": "2024-06-13",
"id": "l8f9mg2",
"parent_id": "1dehxoa",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "bennetthaselton",
"body": "We know that large increases in rent are followed by large increases in homelessness (e.g. in Seattle where I live and where this has been very obvious in the last 15 years). But people often miss the conclusion: If rent going up leads to homelessness going up, that means the increase in homelessness was not caused by \"drugs\". Even if the newly homeless started doing drugs to cope after they became homeless, the drugs did not cause the increase in homelessness.\n\nIn fact, if rents going up is generally followed by homelessness increase, it means that almost by definition, the increase in homelessness could have been prevented by keeping the rent down. The simplest way to do this is to build new housing (either government or private-sector). You *could* keep rents down by setting rent control, but this solution has drawbacks since it disincentivizes people from building new housing. But however you do it, it seems clear that to prevent an increase in homelessness due to rent increase, all you have to do is keep the rent from increasing.\n\nOn other hand, once a person is *already* homeless, getting them off the streets and back into housing is much harder -- they may now have addiction issues or mental health issues aggravated by living on the streets, they now have a gap in their housing history, a gap in their employment history, etc.\n\nSo when a city attempts to reduce homelessness \\*overall\\*, they're faced with an almost unsolvable problem, since it's so hard to reduce the number of existing cases.\n\nSo instead, judge a city's \"success\" based on reduction in the number of \\*new\\* homeless cases. \\[Edited to clarify: this refers to people who used to live in that city and then became homeless. The city should not be penalized if people become homeless in other cities and then move to your city.\\]\n\nThis will incentivize a city to spend their resources where they will make the most difference (under the assumption that, for example, for a given fixed number of dollars, you can choose between preventing 100 new cases of homelessness). Provide humanitarian services to the existing homeless population, but when looking at the costs of getting them back into housing, the blunt truth is that we can help more people (and reduce homelessness more overall) by putting that effort into preventing new cases of homelessness. CMV.\n\nEdited to add: When I say \"city's policies\" this can be extended to refer to government policies more generally, since the anti-homelessness efforts might not be primarily the responsiblity of the city, even if the increase in homelessness is much more visible in a city like Seattle than in the surrounding areas.",
"date": "2024-06-12",
"id": "1dehxoa",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 78,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: it's relatively easy to prevent an increase in new homelessness, but relatively hard to get existing homeless of the streets. So, judge a city's anti-homelessness efforts based on the number of *new* cases they prevent.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1dehxoa/cmv_its_relatively_easy_to_prevent_an_increase_in/"
},
{
"author": "hacksoncode",
"body": "Rent is one issue, and *maybe* the city or county has some control over that, but... what we've seen recently is that it's actually almost entirely economics and wider politics that cause large increases in homelessness. \n\nRent rarely causes homelessness except indirectly. Losing your *job* (or pay not keeping up with inflation, generally, not just rents) causes homelessness. \n\nAnd I *really* don't see how cities are reasonably going to deal with *that* issue by \"keeping rents down\" in any kind of long-term fashion that would be any easier/cheaper than simply giving people money... \n\nWhich would also solve the \"rents are increasing\" issue if we were willing to do that.",
"date": "2024-06-13",
"id": "l8fjq7d",
"parent_id": "1dehxoa",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "bennetthaselton",
"body": "We know that large increases in rent are followed by large increases in homelessness (e.g. in Seattle where I live and where this has been very obvious in the last 15 years). But people often miss the conclusion: If rent going up leads to homelessness going up, that means the increase in homelessness was not caused by \"drugs\". Even if the newly homeless started doing drugs to cope after they became homeless, the drugs did not cause the increase in homelessness.\n\nIn fact, if rents going up is generally followed by homelessness increase, it means that almost by definition, the increase in homelessness could have been prevented by keeping the rent down. The simplest way to do this is to build new housing (either government or private-sector). You *could* keep rents down by setting rent control, but this solution has drawbacks since it disincentivizes people from building new housing. But however you do it, it seems clear that to prevent an increase in homelessness due to rent increase, all you have to do is keep the rent from increasing.\n\nOn other hand, once a person is *already* homeless, getting them off the streets and back into housing is much harder -- they may now have addiction issues or mental health issues aggravated by living on the streets, they now have a gap in their housing history, a gap in their employment history, etc.\n\nSo when a city attempts to reduce homelessness \\*overall\\*, they're faced with an almost unsolvable problem, since it's so hard to reduce the number of existing cases.\n\nSo instead, judge a city's \"success\" based on reduction in the number of \\*new\\* homeless cases. \\[Edited to clarify: this refers to people who used to live in that city and then became homeless. The city should not be penalized if people become homeless in other cities and then move to your city.\\]\n\nThis will incentivize a city to spend their resources where they will make the most difference (under the assumption that, for example, for a given fixed number of dollars, you can choose between preventing 100 new cases of homelessness). Provide humanitarian services to the existing homeless population, but when looking at the costs of getting them back into housing, the blunt truth is that we can help more people (and reduce homelessness more overall) by putting that effort into preventing new cases of homelessness. CMV.\n\nEdited to add: When I say \"city's policies\" this can be extended to refer to government policies more generally, since the anti-homelessness efforts might not be primarily the responsiblity of the city, even if the increase in homelessness is much more visible in a city like Seattle than in the surrounding areas.",
"date": "2024-06-12",
"id": "1dehxoa",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 78,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: it's relatively easy to prevent an increase in new homelessness, but relatively hard to get existing homeless of the streets. So, judge a city's anti-homelessness efforts based on the number of *new* cases they prevent.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1dehxoa/cmv_its_relatively_easy_to_prevent_an_increase_in/"
},
{
"author": "Nihiliatis9",
"body": "Every time I see a church I ask myself... how many homeless people could they feed and house?",
"date": "2024-06-13",
"id": "l8g5mpe",
"parent_id": "1dehxoa",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "bennetthaselton",
"body": "We know that large increases in rent are followed by large increases in homelessness (e.g. in Seattle where I live and where this has been very obvious in the last 15 years). But people often miss the conclusion: If rent going up leads to homelessness going up, that means the increase in homelessness was not caused by \"drugs\". Even if the newly homeless started doing drugs to cope after they became homeless, the drugs did not cause the increase in homelessness.\n\nIn fact, if rents going up is generally followed by homelessness increase, it means that almost by definition, the increase in homelessness could have been prevented by keeping the rent down. The simplest way to do this is to build new housing (either government or private-sector). You *could* keep rents down by setting rent control, but this solution has drawbacks since it disincentivizes people from building new housing. But however you do it, it seems clear that to prevent an increase in homelessness due to rent increase, all you have to do is keep the rent from increasing.\n\nOn other hand, once a person is *already* homeless, getting them off the streets and back into housing is much harder -- they may now have addiction issues or mental health issues aggravated by living on the streets, they now have a gap in their housing history, a gap in their employment history, etc.\n\nSo when a city attempts to reduce homelessness \\*overall\\*, they're faced with an almost unsolvable problem, since it's so hard to reduce the number of existing cases.\n\nSo instead, judge a city's \"success\" based on reduction in the number of \\*new\\* homeless cases. \\[Edited to clarify: this refers to people who used to live in that city and then became homeless. The city should not be penalized if people become homeless in other cities and then move to your city.\\]\n\nThis will incentivize a city to spend their resources where they will make the most difference (under the assumption that, for example, for a given fixed number of dollars, you can choose between preventing 100 new cases of homelessness). Provide humanitarian services to the existing homeless population, but when looking at the costs of getting them back into housing, the blunt truth is that we can help more people (and reduce homelessness more overall) by putting that effort into preventing new cases of homelessness. CMV.\n\nEdited to add: When I say \"city's policies\" this can be extended to refer to government policies more generally, since the anti-homelessness efforts might not be primarily the responsiblity of the city, even if the increase in homelessness is much more visible in a city like Seattle than in the surrounding areas.",
"date": "2024-06-12",
"id": "1dehxoa",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 78,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: it's relatively easy to prevent an increase in new homelessness, but relatively hard to get existing homeless of the streets. So, judge a city's anti-homelessness efforts based on the number of *new* cases they prevent.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1dehxoa/cmv_its_relatively_easy_to_prevent_an_increase_in/"
},
{
"author": "ThatSpencerGuy",
"body": "(1)\n\nI appreciate your thoughtful view, because you're taking a complicated issue and being more specific about it than others might tend to be. But I think we can break this down even **more** than you do already. \n\nThe 'homelessness' problem in America is really a collection of related, but separate problems. You've highlighted one important distinction: the problem of preventing new homelessness vs. the problem of relieving existing homelessness. \n\nBut there are more high-level distinctions we can make. There is the problem of chronic homelessness vs. the problem of short-term homelessness (the modal number of days that people experience homelessness is 1). There's the problem of people being unhoused vs. the problem of public nuisance. There are the health problems *caused* by homelessness. There are unique problems of homelessness particular to certain populations: people with children, people with disabilities, and yes people with substance use disorders. \n\nSo, we can and should be even **more** specific when we're talking about homelessness than you proposed. \n\n(2)\n\nIt's good to recognize that a jurisdiction could be doing well on some of these things and poorly on others. When SPD does sweeps of camps, they're (at least attempting) to solve the problem of public nuisance, but they're obviously not addressing any of the other homelessness problems, and likely making them worse in at least some cases. \n\nBut Seattle and King County bear some responsibility for **all** of them. When you go down 3rd by the County Court house and DESC, many of the people there are not newly homeless. But there is a lot of suffering there, and the human services, housing services, and public health services of Seattle and King County have been charged with addressing that suffering. If they are doing a poor job (by whatever metric is reasonable), it's acceptable to \"judge\" them appropriately.",
"date": "2024-06-13",
"id": "l8gat28",
"parent_id": "1dehxoa",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
]
]
| moderate |
[
{
"author": "bennetthaselton",
"body": "We know that large increases in rent are followed by large increases in homelessness (e.g. in Seattle where I live and where this has been very obvious in the last 15 years). But people often miss the conclusion: If rent going up leads to homelessness going up, that means the increase in homelessness was not caused by \"drugs\". Even if the newly homeless started doing drugs to cope after they became homeless, the drugs did not cause the increase in homelessness.\n\nIn fact, if rents going up is generally followed by homelessness increase, it means that almost by definition, the increase in homelessness could have been prevented by keeping the rent down. The simplest way to do this is to build new housing (either government or private-sector). You *could* keep rents down by setting rent control, but this solution has drawbacks since it disincentivizes people from building new housing. But however you do it, it seems clear that to prevent an increase in homelessness due to rent increase, all you have to do is keep the rent from increasing.\n\nOn other hand, once a person is *already* homeless, getting them off the streets and back into housing is much harder -- they may now have addiction issues or mental health issues aggravated by living on the streets, they now have a gap in their housing history, a gap in their employment history, etc.\n\nSo when a city attempts to reduce homelessness \\*overall\\*, they're faced with an almost unsolvable problem, since it's so hard to reduce the number of existing cases.\n\nSo instead, judge a city's \"success\" based on reduction in the number of \\*new\\* homeless cases. \\[Edited to clarify: this refers to people who used to live in that city and then became homeless. The city should not be penalized if people become homeless in other cities and then move to your city.\\]\n\nThis will incentivize a city to spend their resources where they will make the most difference (under the assumption that, for example, for a given fixed number of dollars, you can choose between preventing 100 new cases of homelessness). Provide humanitarian services to the existing homeless population, but when looking at the costs of getting them back into housing, the blunt truth is that we can help more people (and reduce homelessness more overall) by putting that effort into preventing new cases of homelessness. CMV.\n\nEdited to add: When I say \"city's policies\" this can be extended to refer to government policies more generally, since the anti-homelessness efforts might not be primarily the responsiblity of the city, even if the increase in homelessness is much more visible in a city like Seattle than in the surrounding areas.",
"date": "2024-06-12",
"id": "1dehxoa",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 78,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: it's relatively easy to prevent an increase in new homelessness, but relatively hard to get existing homeless of the streets. So, judge a city's anti-homelessness efforts based on the number of *new* cases they prevent.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1dehxoa/cmv_its_relatively_easy_to_prevent_an_increase_in/"
},
{
"author": "chronberries",
"body": "A huge chunk of the homeless population in any given city isn’t actually from that city. People become homeless in the suburban and rural regions too, then travel to cities because it’s easier to survive there. A good number of them are also recent immigrants with nowhere to go. So, the homeless population rising in a city is not at all entirely a result of that city’s policies, efforts, etc.\n\nIf we want to address the problem of unhoused people, we have to do it nationwide. The cities alone can’t fix this problem, and can’t reasonably be blamed for it to begin with.",
"date": "2024-06-12",
"id": "l8c1krc",
"parent_id": "1dehxoa",
"score": 58,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "bennetthaselton",
"body": "**Δ**\n\nAdding the delta because this at least prompted me to edit the post and clarify: We should count only \"new\" homeless cases where the person used to live in the city.\n\nI agree with what you wrote, I had thought about this too but forgot to mention it. (And people also migrate from other cities where the services are less generous.)\n\nHowever, I would still count this as an argument in favor of judging a city's success by the number of new homeless, rather than the size of the existing population. Here's why:\n\nIf a city provides generous services, that attracts people from other areas. You might view this as good (\"That guy might have died in that other city, but we saved him\") or bad (\"Ugh, more homeless\"), but either way, if the city is judged by the size of its homeless population, this metric now looks worse, unless you have a way of tracking and not counting the people who moved.\n\nOn the other hand, if you are just tracking cases of *new* homelessness (among people who used to live in your city), then your city doesn't get penalized for other homeless people moving there.",
"date": "2024-06-12",
"id": "l8c7twk",
"parent_id": "l8c1krc",
"score": 16,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "DeltaBot",
"body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/chronberries ([6∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/chronberries)).\n\n^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
"date": "2024-06-12",
"id": "l8c85t2",
"parent_id": "l8c7twk",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
]
| [
[
{
"author": "bennetthaselton",
"body": "We know that large increases in rent are followed by large increases in homelessness (e.g. in Seattle where I live and where this has been very obvious in the last 15 years). But people often miss the conclusion: If rent going up leads to homelessness going up, that means the increase in homelessness was not caused by \"drugs\". Even if the newly homeless started doing drugs to cope after they became homeless, the drugs did not cause the increase in homelessness.\n\nIn fact, if rents going up is generally followed by homelessness increase, it means that almost by definition, the increase in homelessness could have been prevented by keeping the rent down. The simplest way to do this is to build new housing (either government or private-sector). You *could* keep rents down by setting rent control, but this solution has drawbacks since it disincentivizes people from building new housing. But however you do it, it seems clear that to prevent an increase in homelessness due to rent increase, all you have to do is keep the rent from increasing.\n\nOn other hand, once a person is *already* homeless, getting them off the streets and back into housing is much harder -- they may now have addiction issues or mental health issues aggravated by living on the streets, they now have a gap in their housing history, a gap in their employment history, etc.\n\nSo when a city attempts to reduce homelessness \\*overall\\*, they're faced with an almost unsolvable problem, since it's so hard to reduce the number of existing cases.\n\nSo instead, judge a city's \"success\" based on reduction in the number of \\*new\\* homeless cases. \\[Edited to clarify: this refers to people who used to live in that city and then became homeless. The city should not be penalized if people become homeless in other cities and then move to your city.\\]\n\nThis will incentivize a city to spend their resources where they will make the most difference (under the assumption that, for example, for a given fixed number of dollars, you can choose between preventing 100 new cases of homelessness). Provide humanitarian services to the existing homeless population, but when looking at the costs of getting them back into housing, the blunt truth is that we can help more people (and reduce homelessness more overall) by putting that effort into preventing new cases of homelessness. CMV.\n\nEdited to add: When I say \"city's policies\" this can be extended to refer to government policies more generally, since the anti-homelessness efforts might not be primarily the responsiblity of the city, even if the increase in homelessness is much more visible in a city like Seattle than in the surrounding areas.",
"date": "2024-06-12",
"id": "1dehxoa",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 78,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: it's relatively easy to prevent an increase in new homelessness, but relatively hard to get existing homeless of the streets. So, judge a city's anti-homelessness efforts based on the number of *new* cases they prevent.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1dehxoa/cmv_its_relatively_easy_to_prevent_an_increase_in/"
},
{
"author": "LapazGracie",
"body": "Now I often rail against USSR as having an atrocious idiotic economic system. But there were some things they did really well.\n\n1) General education. Mostly because they were very strict disciplinaries and had very high education standards.\n\n2) Dealing with homeless.\n\nThis is what they did. \n\nFirst of all you have to understand that while public transportation was very cheap. You couldn't get on there smelling like shit. You'd get thrown out. And pretty much nobody had a car so public transport was the way to get around. The roads were trash, most people used busses and eletrichkas.\n\nSo say they found a homeless man in Moscow. They would send that guy away in a 100KM radius away from Moscow. Remember public transit is all you got and they won't let you on. So it's not so easy to get back.\n\nIn his new home he would have free food, free housing, free medicine and free clothing. Everything would be taken care of. But all of it would be awful quality. The cheapest shit, old ass equipment. They would also be forced to work. They got paid a little bit but mostly the work was there to keep them busy.\n\nNow either you cleaned your act up. Or you stayed in that shithole forever. It was obviously well equipped to deal with alcoholism. Drug addiction was less common but they had \"treatment\" for that (mostly cold turkey). \n\nAnyway this was a very effective system. It was brutal enough to where people didn't really want to become homeless at all costs. Or at least they stayed the fuck away from major metro areas if they did. And on top of that the regular citizens almost never had to interact with them.",
"date": "2024-06-12",
"id": "l8c0190",
"parent_id": "1dehxoa",
"score": 13,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "pigeon888",
"body": "Sounds like prison",
"date": "2024-06-12",
"id": "l8c1ag1",
"parent_id": "l8c0190",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "bennetthaselton",
"body": "We know that large increases in rent are followed by large increases in homelessness (e.g. in Seattle where I live and where this has been very obvious in the last 15 years). But people often miss the conclusion: If rent going up leads to homelessness going up, that means the increase in homelessness was not caused by \"drugs\". Even if the newly homeless started doing drugs to cope after they became homeless, the drugs did not cause the increase in homelessness.\n\nIn fact, if rents going up is generally followed by homelessness increase, it means that almost by definition, the increase in homelessness could have been prevented by keeping the rent down. The simplest way to do this is to build new housing (either government or private-sector). You *could* keep rents down by setting rent control, but this solution has drawbacks since it disincentivizes people from building new housing. But however you do it, it seems clear that to prevent an increase in homelessness due to rent increase, all you have to do is keep the rent from increasing.\n\nOn other hand, once a person is *already* homeless, getting them off the streets and back into housing is much harder -- they may now have addiction issues or mental health issues aggravated by living on the streets, they now have a gap in their housing history, a gap in their employment history, etc.\n\nSo when a city attempts to reduce homelessness \\*overall\\*, they're faced with an almost unsolvable problem, since it's so hard to reduce the number of existing cases.\n\nSo instead, judge a city's \"success\" based on reduction in the number of \\*new\\* homeless cases. \\[Edited to clarify: this refers to people who used to live in that city and then became homeless. The city should not be penalized if people become homeless in other cities and then move to your city.\\]\n\nThis will incentivize a city to spend their resources where they will make the most difference (under the assumption that, for example, for a given fixed number of dollars, you can choose between preventing 100 new cases of homelessness). Provide humanitarian services to the existing homeless population, but when looking at the costs of getting them back into housing, the blunt truth is that we can help more people (and reduce homelessness more overall) by putting that effort into preventing new cases of homelessness. CMV.\n\nEdited to add: When I say \"city's policies\" this can be extended to refer to government policies more generally, since the anti-homelessness efforts might not be primarily the responsiblity of the city, even if the increase in homelessness is much more visible in a city like Seattle than in the surrounding areas.",
"date": "2024-06-12",
"id": "1dehxoa",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 78,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: it's relatively easy to prevent an increase in new homelessness, but relatively hard to get existing homeless of the streets. So, judge a city's anti-homelessness efforts based on the number of *new* cases they prevent.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1dehxoa/cmv_its_relatively_easy_to_prevent_an_increase_in/"
},
{
"author": "Bobbob34",
"body": "We know that large increases in rent are followed by large increases in homelessness (e.g. in Seattle where I live and where this has been very obvious in the last 15 years). But people often miss the conclusion: If rent going up leads to homelessness going up, that means the increase in homelessness was not caused by \"drugs\". Even if the newly homeless started doing drugs to cope after they became homeless, the drugs did not cause the increase in homelessness.\n\nI don't think anyone thinks homelessness is a single-cause problem at any level. \n\nHowever, you're making huge assumptions here. Mainly that an aggregate increase in rent would cause an increase in homelessness AND that that increase would thus somehow be unrelated to drug use. \n\nThose are just random assumptions. An increase in average rent can have a ton of causes. Widespread drug use can be one of those, as people may default, may cause issues in properties, etc. \n\nAlso those may be loosely- to un-related. Prices can rise and thus people who spend more on drugs, or lose their jobs due to drug use, or lose their jobs for other reasons and thus do more drugs, and on and on, can end up homeless and it's not because rent increased.",
"date": "2024-06-12",
"id": "l8c0zmw",
"parent_id": "1dehxoa",
"score": 13,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "pigeon888",
"body": "This is true. OP's causal model is incomplete.",
"date": "2024-06-12",
"id": "l8c1fzi",
"parent_id": "l8c0zmw",
"score": 6,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "bennetthaselton",
"body": "We know that large increases in rent are followed by large increases in homelessness (e.g. in Seattle where I live and where this has been very obvious in the last 15 years). But people often miss the conclusion: If rent going up leads to homelessness going up, that means the increase in homelessness was not caused by \"drugs\". Even if the newly homeless started doing drugs to cope after they became homeless, the drugs did not cause the increase in homelessness.\n\nIn fact, if rents going up is generally followed by homelessness increase, it means that almost by definition, the increase in homelessness could have been prevented by keeping the rent down. The simplest way to do this is to build new housing (either government or private-sector). You *could* keep rents down by setting rent control, but this solution has drawbacks since it disincentivizes people from building new housing. But however you do it, it seems clear that to prevent an increase in homelessness due to rent increase, all you have to do is keep the rent from increasing.\n\nOn other hand, once a person is *already* homeless, getting them off the streets and back into housing is much harder -- they may now have addiction issues or mental health issues aggravated by living on the streets, they now have a gap in their housing history, a gap in their employment history, etc.\n\nSo when a city attempts to reduce homelessness \\*overall\\*, they're faced with an almost unsolvable problem, since it's so hard to reduce the number of existing cases.\n\nSo instead, judge a city's \"success\" based on reduction in the number of \\*new\\* homeless cases. \\[Edited to clarify: this refers to people who used to live in that city and then became homeless. The city should not be penalized if people become homeless in other cities and then move to your city.\\]\n\nThis will incentivize a city to spend their resources where they will make the most difference (under the assumption that, for example, for a given fixed number of dollars, you can choose between preventing 100 new cases of homelessness). Provide humanitarian services to the existing homeless population, but when looking at the costs of getting them back into housing, the blunt truth is that we can help more people (and reduce homelessness more overall) by putting that effort into preventing new cases of homelessness. CMV.\n\nEdited to add: When I say \"city's policies\" this can be extended to refer to government policies more generally, since the anti-homelessness efforts might not be primarily the responsiblity of the city, even if the increase in homelessness is much more visible in a city like Seattle than in the surrounding areas.",
"date": "2024-06-12",
"id": "1dehxoa",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 78,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: it's relatively easy to prevent an increase in new homelessness, but relatively hard to get existing homeless of the streets. So, judge a city's anti-homelessness efforts based on the number of *new* cases they prevent.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1dehxoa/cmv_its_relatively_easy_to_prevent_an_increase_in/"
},
{
"author": "TemperatureThese7909",
"body": "I would argue it's actually very easy to \"solve homelessness\". \n\n\nKill all the homeless. Put all the homeless on buses and don't let them come back. Burn down the tent cities. Jail all the homeless. Etc. \n\n\nWhat's hard is to solve homelessness ethically. \n\n\nWhether we are using prevention or reversal as our metric, in my view it doesn't count if it comes through an immoral means. ",
"date": "2024-06-12",
"id": "l8c1hnr",
"parent_id": "1dehxoa",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "yyzjertl",
"body": "> What's hard is to solve homelessness ethically. \n\nThat's not especially hard either: just provide them with housing. Nothing unethical about giving someone an apartment.",
"date": "2024-06-12",
"id": "l8c2rmj",
"parent_id": "l8c1hnr",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "bennetthaselton",
"body": "We know that large increases in rent are followed by large increases in homelessness (e.g. in Seattle where I live and where this has been very obvious in the last 15 years). But people often miss the conclusion: If rent going up leads to homelessness going up, that means the increase in homelessness was not caused by \"drugs\". Even if the newly homeless started doing drugs to cope after they became homeless, the drugs did not cause the increase in homelessness.\n\nIn fact, if rents going up is generally followed by homelessness increase, it means that almost by definition, the increase in homelessness could have been prevented by keeping the rent down. The simplest way to do this is to build new housing (either government or private-sector). You *could* keep rents down by setting rent control, but this solution has drawbacks since it disincentivizes people from building new housing. But however you do it, it seems clear that to prevent an increase in homelessness due to rent increase, all you have to do is keep the rent from increasing.\n\nOn other hand, once a person is *already* homeless, getting them off the streets and back into housing is much harder -- they may now have addiction issues or mental health issues aggravated by living on the streets, they now have a gap in their housing history, a gap in their employment history, etc.\n\nSo when a city attempts to reduce homelessness \\*overall\\*, they're faced with an almost unsolvable problem, since it's so hard to reduce the number of existing cases.\n\nSo instead, judge a city's \"success\" based on reduction in the number of \\*new\\* homeless cases. \\[Edited to clarify: this refers to people who used to live in that city and then became homeless. The city should not be penalized if people become homeless in other cities and then move to your city.\\]\n\nThis will incentivize a city to spend their resources where they will make the most difference (under the assumption that, for example, for a given fixed number of dollars, you can choose between preventing 100 new cases of homelessness). Provide humanitarian services to the existing homeless population, but when looking at the costs of getting them back into housing, the blunt truth is that we can help more people (and reduce homelessness more overall) by putting that effort into preventing new cases of homelessness. CMV.\n\nEdited to add: When I say \"city's policies\" this can be extended to refer to government policies more generally, since the anti-homelessness efforts might not be primarily the responsiblity of the city, even if the increase in homelessness is much more visible in a city like Seattle than in the surrounding areas.",
"date": "2024-06-12",
"id": "1dehxoa",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 78,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: it's relatively easy to prevent an increase in new homelessness, but relatively hard to get existing homeless of the streets. So, judge a city's anti-homelessness efforts based on the number of *new* cases they prevent.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1dehxoa/cmv_its_relatively_easy_to_prevent_an_increase_in/"
},
{
"author": "orthranus",
"body": "Why do richer cities have higher per capita homelessness rates than poorer cities? Because homelessness is fundamentally a dynamic problem where people in areas with work deficits go to places with work surpluses. Because housing adapts more slowly than most other sectors you get a level of homelessness. Even if government programs exist they too must chase the emerging data and play predict the trend games just as the private sector does. So, even with a socially optimal supply-side policy, there will be a level of homelessness, and those cases must also be judged as part of a city's policy. There is no point of no return for a homeless person, and it is a society's duty, and it's frankly cheaper, to help those in crisis.\n\nNow on the subject of rent control, there is a quote from Von Thüenen, a German agronomist, \"capital that is not maintained soon ceases to be capital\". Rent control is one of the worst long run choices for housing because the private sector will basically stop producing at rent levels where they could invest their money elsewhere. It isn't a bad idea to limit the rate at which rent can rise because it shelters renters from economic fluctuations. The big winner policies are those which twart Nimbyism and grant developers and buyers lots of freedom of choice and command side big block housing projects. On the latter look at the history of Vienna on the former look to the successes of my home city of Edmonton.",
"date": "2024-06-12",
"id": "l8cajc6",
"parent_id": "1dehxoa",
"score": 5,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "bennetthaselton",
"body": "We know that large increases in rent are followed by large increases in homelessness (e.g. in Seattle where I live and where this has been very obvious in the last 15 years). But people often miss the conclusion: If rent going up leads to homelessness going up, that means the increase in homelessness was not caused by \"drugs\". Even if the newly homeless started doing drugs to cope after they became homeless, the drugs did not cause the increase in homelessness.\n\nIn fact, if rents going up is generally followed by homelessness increase, it means that almost by definition, the increase in homelessness could have been prevented by keeping the rent down. The simplest way to do this is to build new housing (either government or private-sector). You *could* keep rents down by setting rent control, but this solution has drawbacks since it disincentivizes people from building new housing. But however you do it, it seems clear that to prevent an increase in homelessness due to rent increase, all you have to do is keep the rent from increasing.\n\nOn other hand, once a person is *already* homeless, getting them off the streets and back into housing is much harder -- they may now have addiction issues or mental health issues aggravated by living on the streets, they now have a gap in their housing history, a gap in their employment history, etc.\n\nSo when a city attempts to reduce homelessness \\*overall\\*, they're faced with an almost unsolvable problem, since it's so hard to reduce the number of existing cases.\n\nSo instead, judge a city's \"success\" based on reduction in the number of \\*new\\* homeless cases. \\[Edited to clarify: this refers to people who used to live in that city and then became homeless. The city should not be penalized if people become homeless in other cities and then move to your city.\\]\n\nThis will incentivize a city to spend their resources where they will make the most difference (under the assumption that, for example, for a given fixed number of dollars, you can choose between preventing 100 new cases of homelessness). Provide humanitarian services to the existing homeless population, but when looking at the costs of getting them back into housing, the blunt truth is that we can help more people (and reduce homelessness more overall) by putting that effort into preventing new cases of homelessness. CMV.\n\nEdited to add: When I say \"city's policies\" this can be extended to refer to government policies more generally, since the anti-homelessness efforts might not be primarily the responsiblity of the city, even if the increase in homelessness is much more visible in a city like Seattle than in the surrounding areas.",
"date": "2024-06-12",
"id": "1dehxoa",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 78,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: it's relatively easy to prevent an increase in new homelessness, but relatively hard to get existing homeless of the streets. So, judge a city's anti-homelessness efforts based on the number of *new* cases they prevent.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1dehxoa/cmv_its_relatively_easy_to_prevent_an_increase_in/"
},
{
"author": "PixieBaronicsi",
"body": "Rent rises are not really something that the “city” has control of in the short term. If you disagree, can you think of a city that has prevented rent increases by suing something within the city’s control? Other factors that lead to people becoming homeless in the first place, like unemployment and cracks in the welfare system are usually more to do with macroeconomic conditions and national government policy (or state, depending on which country)\n\nOn the other hand drug rehabilitation schemes and emergency accommodation for the homeless generally do fall within the remit of municipal government, and therefore the ability of a city to help the homeless through these schemes is a much more reasonable judge of the city’s competence than those factors that lead to people becoming homeless in the first place",
"date": "2024-06-12",
"id": "l8cdu02",
"parent_id": "1dehxoa",
"score": 8,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "bennetthaselton",
"body": "The city can't block rent rises but it can offer assistance to people who are affected by rising rents. It seems like you could pick some baseline rent where under \"normal\" conditions it would rise a certain amount every year, but then if it rises significantly above that, give vouchers to people to help them cover the rent increases. From the tenant's point of view it's like rent control, except that instead of forcing all of the costs on the landlord, it spreads the cost more evenly among taxpayers in proportion to their ability to pay (which seems a lot more fair).",
"date": "2024-06-12",
"id": "l8cfg28",
"parent_id": "l8cdu02",
"score": 2,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "bennetthaselton",
"body": "We know that large increases in rent are followed by large increases in homelessness (e.g. in Seattle where I live and where this has been very obvious in the last 15 years). But people often miss the conclusion: If rent going up leads to homelessness going up, that means the increase in homelessness was not caused by \"drugs\". Even if the newly homeless started doing drugs to cope after they became homeless, the drugs did not cause the increase in homelessness.\n\nIn fact, if rents going up is generally followed by homelessness increase, it means that almost by definition, the increase in homelessness could have been prevented by keeping the rent down. The simplest way to do this is to build new housing (either government or private-sector). You *could* keep rents down by setting rent control, but this solution has drawbacks since it disincentivizes people from building new housing. But however you do it, it seems clear that to prevent an increase in homelessness due to rent increase, all you have to do is keep the rent from increasing.\n\nOn other hand, once a person is *already* homeless, getting them off the streets and back into housing is much harder -- they may now have addiction issues or mental health issues aggravated by living on the streets, they now have a gap in their housing history, a gap in their employment history, etc.\n\nSo when a city attempts to reduce homelessness \\*overall\\*, they're faced with an almost unsolvable problem, since it's so hard to reduce the number of existing cases.\n\nSo instead, judge a city's \"success\" based on reduction in the number of \\*new\\* homeless cases. \\[Edited to clarify: this refers to people who used to live in that city and then became homeless. The city should not be penalized if people become homeless in other cities and then move to your city.\\]\n\nThis will incentivize a city to spend their resources where they will make the most difference (under the assumption that, for example, for a given fixed number of dollars, you can choose between preventing 100 new cases of homelessness). Provide humanitarian services to the existing homeless population, but when looking at the costs of getting them back into housing, the blunt truth is that we can help more people (and reduce homelessness more overall) by putting that effort into preventing new cases of homelessness. CMV.\n\nEdited to add: When I say \"city's policies\" this can be extended to refer to government policies more generally, since the anti-homelessness efforts might not be primarily the responsiblity of the city, even if the increase in homelessness is much more visible in a city like Seattle than in the surrounding areas.",
"date": "2024-06-12",
"id": "1dehxoa",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 78,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: it's relatively easy to prevent an increase in new homelessness, but relatively hard to get existing homeless of the streets. So, judge a city's anti-homelessness efforts based on the number of *new* cases they prevent.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1dehxoa/cmv_its_relatively_easy_to_prevent_an_increase_in/"
},
{
"author": "Shoddy_Young7565",
"body": "As long as we share our streets with people with a huge sense of entitlement, we will never get rid of homelessness. if the tinted community helped each other the world would be a better place",
"date": "2024-06-12",
"id": "l8culr9",
"parent_id": "1dehxoa",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "changemyview-ModTeam",
"body": "Sorry, u/Shoddy_Young7565 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). \n\nIf you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20Shoddy_Young7565&message=Shoddy_Young7565%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\\[their%20comment\\]\\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1dehxoa/-/l8culr9/\\)%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
"date": "2024-06-13",
"id": "l8fig6t",
"parent_id": "l8culr9",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "bennetthaselton",
"body": "We know that large increases in rent are followed by large increases in homelessness (e.g. in Seattle where I live and where this has been very obvious in the last 15 years). But people often miss the conclusion: If rent going up leads to homelessness going up, that means the increase in homelessness was not caused by \"drugs\". Even if the newly homeless started doing drugs to cope after they became homeless, the drugs did not cause the increase in homelessness.\n\nIn fact, if rents going up is generally followed by homelessness increase, it means that almost by definition, the increase in homelessness could have been prevented by keeping the rent down. The simplest way to do this is to build new housing (either government or private-sector). You *could* keep rents down by setting rent control, but this solution has drawbacks since it disincentivizes people from building new housing. But however you do it, it seems clear that to prevent an increase in homelessness due to rent increase, all you have to do is keep the rent from increasing.\n\nOn other hand, once a person is *already* homeless, getting them off the streets and back into housing is much harder -- they may now have addiction issues or mental health issues aggravated by living on the streets, they now have a gap in their housing history, a gap in their employment history, etc.\n\nSo when a city attempts to reduce homelessness \\*overall\\*, they're faced with an almost unsolvable problem, since it's so hard to reduce the number of existing cases.\n\nSo instead, judge a city's \"success\" based on reduction in the number of \\*new\\* homeless cases. \\[Edited to clarify: this refers to people who used to live in that city and then became homeless. The city should not be penalized if people become homeless in other cities and then move to your city.\\]\n\nThis will incentivize a city to spend their resources where they will make the most difference (under the assumption that, for example, for a given fixed number of dollars, you can choose between preventing 100 new cases of homelessness). Provide humanitarian services to the existing homeless population, but when looking at the costs of getting them back into housing, the blunt truth is that we can help more people (and reduce homelessness more overall) by putting that effort into preventing new cases of homelessness. CMV.\n\nEdited to add: When I say \"city's policies\" this can be extended to refer to government policies more generally, since the anti-homelessness efforts might not be primarily the responsiblity of the city, even if the increase in homelessness is much more visible in a city like Seattle than in the surrounding areas.",
"date": "2024-06-12",
"id": "1dehxoa",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 78,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: it's relatively easy to prevent an increase in new homelessness, but relatively hard to get existing homeless of the streets. So, judge a city's anti-homelessness efforts based on the number of *new* cases they prevent.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1dehxoa/cmv_its_relatively_easy_to_prevent_an_increase_in/"
},
{
"author": "4zero4error31",
"body": "Actually it's extremely easy to get homeless people off the streets, and cheaper than letting them remain homeless too! \n\nHomelessness is almost always caused by: Lack of money, lack of available housing, or disease of some kind (including medical debt in the US, mental illness, addiction, etc.) All three can be solved by offering free housing to homeless people, giving everyone a universal basic income, and offering free therapy/medical care. Sure, that sounds insane and expensive and \\*socialist,\\* but it's also a proven fact that it works. And what's even better is IT'S CHEAPER THAN LETTING THEM STAY HOMELESS!! Between the cost of emergency room visits, healthcare, police expenditures, and loss to crime, you actually SAVE money by tens of thousands of dollars per person. A Colorado study found that the average homeless person cost the state forty-three thousand dollars a year, while housing that person would cost just seventeen thousand dollars.\n\nUtah, yes Utah, did it and it cut homelessness by 74% and saved the state money. : [https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/09/22/home-free](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/09/22/home-free)\n\nFinland does it and it's saving them money too: [https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/a-paradigm-shift-in-social-policy-how-finland-conquered-homelessness-a-ba1a531e-8129-4c71-94fc-7268c5b109d9](https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/a-paradigm-shift-in-social-policy-how-finland-conquered-homelessness-a-ba1a531e-8129-4c71-94fc-7268c5b109d9)\n\n \nThe simple truth is that having homeless people is a choice, one made out of ignorance or prejudice. We see homeless people as immoral, as weak, as failures, and so we say they deserve their punishment for whatever they obviously must have done to deserve this. It's a lie we've told ourselves for so long we can hardly even imagine there's another way, but it' still a lie. The people in charge choose to have homeless people because of protestant work ethics or because they want the middle and lower classes to keep producing out of fear of what awaits them if they stop.",
"date": "2024-06-12",
"id": "l8d59jq",
"parent_id": "1dehxoa",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
},
{
"author": "changemyview-ModTeam",
"body": "Sorry, u/4zero4error31 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). \n\nIf you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%204zero4error31&message=4zero4error31%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\\[their%20comment\\]\\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1dehxoa/-/l8d59jq/\\)%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
"date": "2024-06-13",
"id": "l8fi7ln",
"parent_id": "l8d59jq",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "bennetthaselton",
"body": "We know that large increases in rent are followed by large increases in homelessness (e.g. in Seattle where I live and where this has been very obvious in the last 15 years). But people often miss the conclusion: If rent going up leads to homelessness going up, that means the increase in homelessness was not caused by \"drugs\". Even if the newly homeless started doing drugs to cope after they became homeless, the drugs did not cause the increase in homelessness.\n\nIn fact, if rents going up is generally followed by homelessness increase, it means that almost by definition, the increase in homelessness could have been prevented by keeping the rent down. The simplest way to do this is to build new housing (either government or private-sector). You *could* keep rents down by setting rent control, but this solution has drawbacks since it disincentivizes people from building new housing. But however you do it, it seems clear that to prevent an increase in homelessness due to rent increase, all you have to do is keep the rent from increasing.\n\nOn other hand, once a person is *already* homeless, getting them off the streets and back into housing is much harder -- they may now have addiction issues or mental health issues aggravated by living on the streets, they now have a gap in their housing history, a gap in their employment history, etc.\n\nSo when a city attempts to reduce homelessness \\*overall\\*, they're faced with an almost unsolvable problem, since it's so hard to reduce the number of existing cases.\n\nSo instead, judge a city's \"success\" based on reduction in the number of \\*new\\* homeless cases. \\[Edited to clarify: this refers to people who used to live in that city and then became homeless. The city should not be penalized if people become homeless in other cities and then move to your city.\\]\n\nThis will incentivize a city to spend their resources where they will make the most difference (under the assumption that, for example, for a given fixed number of dollars, you can choose between preventing 100 new cases of homelessness). Provide humanitarian services to the existing homeless population, but when looking at the costs of getting them back into housing, the blunt truth is that we can help more people (and reduce homelessness more overall) by putting that effort into preventing new cases of homelessness. CMV.\n\nEdited to add: When I say \"city's policies\" this can be extended to refer to government policies more generally, since the anti-homelessness efforts might not be primarily the responsiblity of the city, even if the increase in homelessness is much more visible in a city like Seattle than in the surrounding areas.",
"date": "2024-06-12",
"id": "1dehxoa",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 78,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: it's relatively easy to prevent an increase in new homelessness, but relatively hard to get existing homeless of the streets. So, judge a city's anti-homelessness efforts based on the number of *new* cases they prevent.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1dehxoa/cmv_its_relatively_easy_to_prevent_an_increase_in/"
},
{
"author": "fervent_muffin",
"body": "I can agree with this. I worked in this field for awhile and I came to the conclusion that our systems/resources were great at stopping situationally homeless from becoming chronically homeless, but it was not well equipped at elevating chronically homeless into regular society. \n\n\nBecause of this, I've considered the idea of a new type of institutionalization, circa pre-Regan, but with much better oversight and ethics for the chronically homeless who have demonstrated they do not want to be participants of \"regular society\". Letting them occupy the public space while not playing by the rest of societies rules is a recipe for disaster as we have observed. The other day, I had a coworker get randomly stabbed in the neck by one of these people. \n\n\nBut those who would say just put them in jail or get them off the street misunderstand the issue. Both the left and the right prescribe solutions destined to fail because the lack a grasp on some basic fundamentals of this subject. I doubt this idea will gain any political traction, but in my professional opinion, it's the most likely to bring us to a mutually satisfactory solution. ",
"date": "2024-06-13",
"id": "l8dvb28",
"parent_id": "1dehxoa",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "bennetthaselton",
"body": "We know that large increases in rent are followed by large increases in homelessness (e.g. in Seattle where I live and where this has been very obvious in the last 15 years). But people often miss the conclusion: If rent going up leads to homelessness going up, that means the increase in homelessness was not caused by \"drugs\". Even if the newly homeless started doing drugs to cope after they became homeless, the drugs did not cause the increase in homelessness.\n\nIn fact, if rents going up is generally followed by homelessness increase, it means that almost by definition, the increase in homelessness could have been prevented by keeping the rent down. The simplest way to do this is to build new housing (either government or private-sector). You *could* keep rents down by setting rent control, but this solution has drawbacks since it disincentivizes people from building new housing. But however you do it, it seems clear that to prevent an increase in homelessness due to rent increase, all you have to do is keep the rent from increasing.\n\nOn other hand, once a person is *already* homeless, getting them off the streets and back into housing is much harder -- they may now have addiction issues or mental health issues aggravated by living on the streets, they now have a gap in their housing history, a gap in their employment history, etc.\n\nSo when a city attempts to reduce homelessness \\*overall\\*, they're faced with an almost unsolvable problem, since it's so hard to reduce the number of existing cases.\n\nSo instead, judge a city's \"success\" based on reduction in the number of \\*new\\* homeless cases. \\[Edited to clarify: this refers to people who used to live in that city and then became homeless. The city should not be penalized if people become homeless in other cities and then move to your city.\\]\n\nThis will incentivize a city to spend their resources where they will make the most difference (under the assumption that, for example, for a given fixed number of dollars, you can choose between preventing 100 new cases of homelessness). Provide humanitarian services to the existing homeless population, but when looking at the costs of getting them back into housing, the blunt truth is that we can help more people (and reduce homelessness more overall) by putting that effort into preventing new cases of homelessness. CMV.\n\nEdited to add: When I say \"city's policies\" this can be extended to refer to government policies more generally, since the anti-homelessness efforts might not be primarily the responsiblity of the city, even if the increase in homelessness is much more visible in a city like Seattle than in the surrounding areas.",
"date": "2024-06-12",
"id": "1dehxoa",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 78,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: it's relatively easy to prevent an increase in new homelessness, but relatively hard to get existing homeless of the streets. So, judge a city's anti-homelessness efforts based on the number of *new* cases they prevent.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1dehxoa/cmv_its_relatively_easy_to_prevent_an_increase_in/"
},
{
"author": "Basic-Reputation605",
"body": "Looking at new homeless cases doesn't give you an accurate measure of how they handle the crisis.\n\nFor the purpise of this post the crisis can be simplified with two parts, one they don't have homes, two they aren't functioning members of society.\n\nHomeless people typically travel too places that are more accommodating to their lifestyles. More social programs, more opportunities for free stuff and continuation of their lifestyle. They migrate massively increasing homelessness in those areas.\n\nTypically but not always these same.plaves have social programs offering extremely cheap or free housing. These programs do not solve the second part of the homeless crisis being that they still don't contribute to society. All this does is prevent them from falling under the homeless metric skewing the number while they still live the homeless lifestyle but now with a roof. Why be a bum with no roof when you could be a bum with one? This skews the numbers so yes there's less people without \"homes\", but these people still aren't fully functioning members of society they just have a roof now they don't have to work.to pay for. This doesn't solve the problem at all it hides it. I get that it's ethical to provide homes but all we do is end up lying to ourselves through numbers.",
"date": "2024-06-13",
"id": "l8eyy89",
"parent_id": "1dehxoa",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "bennetthaselton",
"body": "We know that large increases in rent are followed by large increases in homelessness (e.g. in Seattle where I live and where this has been very obvious in the last 15 years). But people often miss the conclusion: If rent going up leads to homelessness going up, that means the increase in homelessness was not caused by \"drugs\". Even if the newly homeless started doing drugs to cope after they became homeless, the drugs did not cause the increase in homelessness.\n\nIn fact, if rents going up is generally followed by homelessness increase, it means that almost by definition, the increase in homelessness could have been prevented by keeping the rent down. The simplest way to do this is to build new housing (either government or private-sector). You *could* keep rents down by setting rent control, but this solution has drawbacks since it disincentivizes people from building new housing. But however you do it, it seems clear that to prevent an increase in homelessness due to rent increase, all you have to do is keep the rent from increasing.\n\nOn other hand, once a person is *already* homeless, getting them off the streets and back into housing is much harder -- they may now have addiction issues or mental health issues aggravated by living on the streets, they now have a gap in their housing history, a gap in their employment history, etc.\n\nSo when a city attempts to reduce homelessness \\*overall\\*, they're faced with an almost unsolvable problem, since it's so hard to reduce the number of existing cases.\n\nSo instead, judge a city's \"success\" based on reduction in the number of \\*new\\* homeless cases. \\[Edited to clarify: this refers to people who used to live in that city and then became homeless. The city should not be penalized if people become homeless in other cities and then move to your city.\\]\n\nThis will incentivize a city to spend their resources where they will make the most difference (under the assumption that, for example, for a given fixed number of dollars, you can choose between preventing 100 new cases of homelessness). Provide humanitarian services to the existing homeless population, but when looking at the costs of getting them back into housing, the blunt truth is that we can help more people (and reduce homelessness more overall) by putting that effort into preventing new cases of homelessness. CMV.\n\nEdited to add: When I say \"city's policies\" this can be extended to refer to government policies more generally, since the anti-homelessness efforts might not be primarily the responsiblity of the city, even if the increase in homelessness is much more visible in a city like Seattle than in the surrounding areas.",
"date": "2024-06-12",
"id": "1dehxoa",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 78,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: it's relatively easy to prevent an increase in new homelessness, but relatively hard to get existing homeless of the streets. So, judge a city's anti-homelessness efforts based on the number of *new* cases they prevent.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1dehxoa/cmv_its_relatively_easy_to_prevent_an_increase_in/"
},
{
"author": "icansawyou",
"body": "What you are writing about is not just a matter of rent. Obviously, the people who found themselves on the street had problems.: they were unable to pay for housing. That is, they did not have the means. And that's where a lot of questions arise. \n \nWhat influences the amount of rent for housing? How can this factor be influenced without prejudice to the landlord? How high was the income of these people? Why didn't this person change his place of residence to optimize expenses? Why did the authorities (in the broadest sense of the word) not worry about the fact that a person finds himself on the street? \n \nProbably, to answer these and other questions, it would be great to conduct research on this topic or refer to one if it has already been conducted. \n \nI am not from the USA myself, but I have seen videos where crowds of homeless people roam the American streets. It is, of course, a terrible sight. I can only assume that the homeless are some kind of symptom of some kind of structural and systemic error within your society and how it develops socially and economically. I'm sorry if my final conclusion seems trivial and obvious to you.",
"date": "2024-06-13",
"id": "l8f9mg2",
"parent_id": "1dehxoa",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "bennetthaselton",
"body": "We know that large increases in rent are followed by large increases in homelessness (e.g. in Seattle where I live and where this has been very obvious in the last 15 years). But people often miss the conclusion: If rent going up leads to homelessness going up, that means the increase in homelessness was not caused by \"drugs\". Even if the newly homeless started doing drugs to cope after they became homeless, the drugs did not cause the increase in homelessness.\n\nIn fact, if rents going up is generally followed by homelessness increase, it means that almost by definition, the increase in homelessness could have been prevented by keeping the rent down. The simplest way to do this is to build new housing (either government or private-sector). You *could* keep rents down by setting rent control, but this solution has drawbacks since it disincentivizes people from building new housing. But however you do it, it seems clear that to prevent an increase in homelessness due to rent increase, all you have to do is keep the rent from increasing.\n\nOn other hand, once a person is *already* homeless, getting them off the streets and back into housing is much harder -- they may now have addiction issues or mental health issues aggravated by living on the streets, they now have a gap in their housing history, a gap in their employment history, etc.\n\nSo when a city attempts to reduce homelessness \\*overall\\*, they're faced with an almost unsolvable problem, since it's so hard to reduce the number of existing cases.\n\nSo instead, judge a city's \"success\" based on reduction in the number of \\*new\\* homeless cases. \\[Edited to clarify: this refers to people who used to live in that city and then became homeless. The city should not be penalized if people become homeless in other cities and then move to your city.\\]\n\nThis will incentivize a city to spend their resources where they will make the most difference (under the assumption that, for example, for a given fixed number of dollars, you can choose between preventing 100 new cases of homelessness). Provide humanitarian services to the existing homeless population, but when looking at the costs of getting them back into housing, the blunt truth is that we can help more people (and reduce homelessness more overall) by putting that effort into preventing new cases of homelessness. CMV.\n\nEdited to add: When I say \"city's policies\" this can be extended to refer to government policies more generally, since the anti-homelessness efforts might not be primarily the responsiblity of the city, even if the increase in homelessness is much more visible in a city like Seattle than in the surrounding areas.",
"date": "2024-06-12",
"id": "1dehxoa",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 78,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: it's relatively easy to prevent an increase in new homelessness, but relatively hard to get existing homeless of the streets. So, judge a city's anti-homelessness efforts based on the number of *new* cases they prevent.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1dehxoa/cmv_its_relatively_easy_to_prevent_an_increase_in/"
},
{
"author": "hacksoncode",
"body": "Rent is one issue, and *maybe* the city or county has some control over that, but... what we've seen recently is that it's actually almost entirely economics and wider politics that cause large increases in homelessness. \n\nRent rarely causes homelessness except indirectly. Losing your *job* (or pay not keeping up with inflation, generally, not just rents) causes homelessness. \n\nAnd I *really* don't see how cities are reasonably going to deal with *that* issue by \"keeping rents down\" in any kind of long-term fashion that would be any easier/cheaper than simply giving people money... \n\nWhich would also solve the \"rents are increasing\" issue if we were willing to do that.",
"date": "2024-06-13",
"id": "l8fjq7d",
"parent_id": "1dehxoa",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "bennetthaselton",
"body": "We know that large increases in rent are followed by large increases in homelessness (e.g. in Seattle where I live and where this has been very obvious in the last 15 years). But people often miss the conclusion: If rent going up leads to homelessness going up, that means the increase in homelessness was not caused by \"drugs\". Even if the newly homeless started doing drugs to cope after they became homeless, the drugs did not cause the increase in homelessness.\n\nIn fact, if rents going up is generally followed by homelessness increase, it means that almost by definition, the increase in homelessness could have been prevented by keeping the rent down. The simplest way to do this is to build new housing (either government or private-sector). You *could* keep rents down by setting rent control, but this solution has drawbacks since it disincentivizes people from building new housing. But however you do it, it seems clear that to prevent an increase in homelessness due to rent increase, all you have to do is keep the rent from increasing.\n\nOn other hand, once a person is *already* homeless, getting them off the streets and back into housing is much harder -- they may now have addiction issues or mental health issues aggravated by living on the streets, they now have a gap in their housing history, a gap in their employment history, etc.\n\nSo when a city attempts to reduce homelessness \\*overall\\*, they're faced with an almost unsolvable problem, since it's so hard to reduce the number of existing cases.\n\nSo instead, judge a city's \"success\" based on reduction in the number of \\*new\\* homeless cases. \\[Edited to clarify: this refers to people who used to live in that city and then became homeless. The city should not be penalized if people become homeless in other cities and then move to your city.\\]\n\nThis will incentivize a city to spend their resources where they will make the most difference (under the assumption that, for example, for a given fixed number of dollars, you can choose between preventing 100 new cases of homelessness). Provide humanitarian services to the existing homeless population, but when looking at the costs of getting them back into housing, the blunt truth is that we can help more people (and reduce homelessness more overall) by putting that effort into preventing new cases of homelessness. CMV.\n\nEdited to add: When I say \"city's policies\" this can be extended to refer to government policies more generally, since the anti-homelessness efforts might not be primarily the responsiblity of the city, even if the increase in homelessness is much more visible in a city like Seattle than in the surrounding areas.",
"date": "2024-06-12",
"id": "1dehxoa",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 78,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: it's relatively easy to prevent an increase in new homelessness, but relatively hard to get existing homeless of the streets. So, judge a city's anti-homelessness efforts based on the number of *new* cases they prevent.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1dehxoa/cmv_its_relatively_easy_to_prevent_an_increase_in/"
},
{
"author": "Nihiliatis9",
"body": "Every time I see a church I ask myself... how many homeless people could they feed and house?",
"date": "2024-06-13",
"id": "l8g5mpe",
"parent_id": "1dehxoa",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
],
[
{
"author": "bennetthaselton",
"body": "We know that large increases in rent are followed by large increases in homelessness (e.g. in Seattle where I live and where this has been very obvious in the last 15 years). But people often miss the conclusion: If rent going up leads to homelessness going up, that means the increase in homelessness was not caused by \"drugs\". Even if the newly homeless started doing drugs to cope after they became homeless, the drugs did not cause the increase in homelessness.\n\nIn fact, if rents going up is generally followed by homelessness increase, it means that almost by definition, the increase in homelessness could have been prevented by keeping the rent down. The simplest way to do this is to build new housing (either government or private-sector). You *could* keep rents down by setting rent control, but this solution has drawbacks since it disincentivizes people from building new housing. But however you do it, it seems clear that to prevent an increase in homelessness due to rent increase, all you have to do is keep the rent from increasing.\n\nOn other hand, once a person is *already* homeless, getting them off the streets and back into housing is much harder -- they may now have addiction issues or mental health issues aggravated by living on the streets, they now have a gap in their housing history, a gap in their employment history, etc.\n\nSo when a city attempts to reduce homelessness \\*overall\\*, they're faced with an almost unsolvable problem, since it's so hard to reduce the number of existing cases.\n\nSo instead, judge a city's \"success\" based on reduction in the number of \\*new\\* homeless cases. \\[Edited to clarify: this refers to people who used to live in that city and then became homeless. The city should not be penalized if people become homeless in other cities and then move to your city.\\]\n\nThis will incentivize a city to spend their resources where they will make the most difference (under the assumption that, for example, for a given fixed number of dollars, you can choose between preventing 100 new cases of homelessness). Provide humanitarian services to the existing homeless population, but when looking at the costs of getting them back into housing, the blunt truth is that we can help more people (and reduce homelessness more overall) by putting that effort into preventing new cases of homelessness. CMV.\n\nEdited to add: When I say \"city's policies\" this can be extended to refer to government policies more generally, since the anti-homelessness efforts might not be primarily the responsiblity of the city, even if the increase in homelessness is much more visible in a city like Seattle than in the surrounding areas.",
"date": "2024-06-12",
"id": "1dehxoa",
"parent_id": null,
"score": 78,
"subreddit": "changemyview",
"title": "CMV: it's relatively easy to prevent an increase in new homelessness, but relatively hard to get existing homeless of the streets. So, judge a city's anti-homelessness efforts based on the number of *new* cases they prevent.",
"url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1dehxoa/cmv_its_relatively_easy_to_prevent_an_increase_in/"
},
{
"author": "ThatSpencerGuy",
"body": "(1)\n\nI appreciate your thoughtful view, because you're taking a complicated issue and being more specific about it than others might tend to be. But I think we can break this down even **more** than you do already. \n\nThe 'homelessness' problem in America is really a collection of related, but separate problems. You've highlighted one important distinction: the problem of preventing new homelessness vs. the problem of relieving existing homelessness. \n\nBut there are more high-level distinctions we can make. There is the problem of chronic homelessness vs. the problem of short-term homelessness (the modal number of days that people experience homelessness is 1). There's the problem of people being unhoused vs. the problem of public nuisance. There are the health problems *caused* by homelessness. There are unique problems of homelessness particular to certain populations: people with children, people with disabilities, and yes people with substance use disorders. \n\nSo, we can and should be even **more** specific when we're talking about homelessness than you proposed. \n\n(2)\n\nIt's good to recognize that a jurisdiction could be doing well on some of these things and poorly on others. When SPD does sweeps of camps, they're (at least attempting) to solve the problem of public nuisance, but they're obviously not addressing any of the other homelessness problems, and likely making them worse in at least some cases. \n\nBut Seattle and King County bear some responsibility for **all** of them. When you go down 3rd by the County Court house and DESC, many of the people there are not newly homeless. But there is a lot of suffering there, and the human services, housing services, and public health services of Seattle and King County have been charged with addressing that suffering. If they are doing a poor job (by whatever metric is reasonable), it's acceptable to \"judge\" them appropriately.",
"date": "2024-06-13",
"id": "l8gat28",
"parent_id": "1dehxoa",
"score": 1,
"subreddit": null,
"title": null,
"url": null
}
]
]
| challenge |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.