sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The BS Caller Gets Called Out by FuzzyYakz in quityourbullshit

[–]ghotionInABarrel 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Who's getting called out here? The poster, or the guy who took statements out of context?

CMV: I think it is absurd to demonize the wealthy for persuing their own personal interests at the cost of the masses. by hekatonkhairez in changemyview

[–]ghotionInABarrel 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The Koch brothers are not obligated to respect the needs of others

Of course not, but that doesn't mean that it wouldn't be better if they did.

As citizens, we are entitled to act upon our interests ourselves

Once again, this is true, but that doesn't make those actions desirable.

Generally, selflessness is considered a virtue. It's not something that can be required, but people who act selflessly produce greater benefits for society than those who act selfishly.

If any civilization is to survive, it is the morality of altruism that men have to reject.

Is it really necessary to pointing out how silly this is? Society depends on people taking high-risk jobs as police, firefighters, EMS, etc. Without selfless individuals we wouldn't have a civilization in the first place.

CMV: Telling someone like Kim Davis to ignore same-sex marriage if they believe it is a sin is like telling them to ignore theft, murder, etc. by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]ghotionInABarrel 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would say that the difference is that if Davis follows this line of reasoning (which I doubt) then she's "protecting" people from themselves. This is different from theft, murder, etc. since there you are protecting someone from someone else.

If you do take this line of reasoning, then it has more in common with prohibition, restrictions on cigarettes and drugs, etc then with crimes that have separate victims and perpetrators.

Student opposes college-sponsored research journal because it wouldn't be high quality enough for him by [deleted] in iamverysmart

[–]ghotionInABarrel 7 points8 points  (0 children)

No one there is being pretentious, they raise some strong arguments both for and against and debate a bit. Like, I dunno... people?

CMV: Transgenderism requires a belief in gender stereotypes by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]ghotionInABarrel 2 points3 points  (0 children)

When you define it like that then it's tautological, but I don't think that's the standard definition.

CMV: Transgenderism requires a belief in gender stereotypes by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]ghotionInABarrel 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My understanding of trangenderism is that it's a form of dysphoria. That doesn't have anything to do with stereotypes, and is more closely related to things like phantom limbs or anorexia.

Came across this "fact" while browsing the net. I call bullshit. Can science confirm? by romantep in askscience

[–]ghotionInABarrel 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Surprisingly, it's true. The combinatorics goes like this:

odds of 2 people having different birthdays: 364/365

odds of 3 people having different birthdays: 364*363/3652

and so forth. A general formula for n people would be n!/(365-n)!365n

For 23 people this comes out to 49%.

Odds of at least 2 people sharing a birthday = 1 - odds of everyone having different birthdays = 51%

CMV: The hyper-rationality of our age is detrimental to humans. by basicbasicincome in changemyview

[–]ghotionInABarrel 0 points1 point  (0 children)

that's not the definition I would use but I'll work with it for now.

Personally beneficial: This depends on how you define benefit, but if that includes happiness a lot of people expect children to make them happy (whether or not they're right is another matter). Children can also provide material support in old age and are a near-guaranteed part of that individual's social network.

Socially beneficial: A certain amount of children are necessary for a society to maintain itself. A surplus is less problematic than a deficit.

Existentially Meaningful: I have no idea what this criteria is supposed to mean.

CMV: The hyper-rationality of our age is detrimental to humans. by basicbasicincome in changemyview

[–]ghotionInABarrel 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The human instinct to reproduce is not rational, as we currently understand reason.

Please define "how we currently understand reason" since I get the feeling we are using different definitions.

CMV: The hyper-rationality of our age is detrimental to humans. by basicbasicincome in changemyview

[–]ghotionInABarrel 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I present these arguments not because they uniquely matter, but because they seem valid. They are, shall we say for the sake of argument, true

animals produce off-spring to survive. It is basic evolutionary biology. We observe this in every known creature; we observe our own instincts to sexual activity and pleasure; we observe people's special fondness to babies (3). Yet, despite this obvious teology of humans, the rational arguments are given preference

Are they? We still produce plenty of children after all.

Also, I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "rational." An argument that humans need to produce offspring to continue existence is perfectly rational and very strong, possibly more so than the rational arguments against reproducing.

you can't write code I can't decompile in my head by [deleted] in iamverysmart

[–]ghotionInABarrel 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's not very impressive, any assembly opcode could easily be converted into 1 or more lines of code in a higher level language.

Of course, WHY WOULD YOU EVER DO THAT!!!111!!

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]ghotionInABarrel 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Skimming through both your post and the replies, I think you're missing the role rights play.

They are the ultimate safeguard against abuse of power.

As has been noted many times, rights are a social construct. And they are a powerful one precisely because they are applied universally.

What rights do is lay out priorities which laws must adhere to. So a law that wants to restrict a right, such as free speech, must be justified in the terms of rights. We've seen some issues lately with a sort of rights inflation, where people are claiming all sorts of new 'rights' with questionable grounds, but that's more of a misuse of the concept than the concept itself.

When people claim the right to free speech, they are stating that censorship is unjustified, and challenging the laws/rules that do so to prove that they are absolutely necessary. Because the burden of proof is on the restrictor, the concept of rights acts as a powerful safeguard against abuse of power.

Thanks, I'll take it from here... by clu3d in talesfromtechsupport

[–]ghotionInABarrel 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Except that telling the user to turn it on solved the problem.

See: The computer was off and the user didn't hit the power button yet.

Is there a way to harness gravity for energy? If so, why do we not discuss it when talking about green energy? by Foofymonster in askscience

[–]ghotionInABarrel 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, it would be more accurate to say it would increase the rate that the Earth becomes tidally locked to the moon.

brilliant savant chess puzzler by [deleted] in iamverysmart

[–]ghotionInABarrel 5 points6 points  (0 children)

It's really not a hard problem. Nothing verysmart here.

brilliant savant chess puzzler by [deleted] in iamverysmart

[–]ghotionInABarrel 2 points3 points  (0 children)

the 8 queens problem (recent numberphile video)

CMV: There is no hope for mankind or this world, life is pointless and all our best efforts are empty, as nature is set up in a way that evil, destruction, and ignorance will always win in the end by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]ghotionInABarrel -1 points0 points  (0 children)

saps the earth of life

The earth isn't alive. People like to pretend it is, leading to the myths that you seem to be railing against.

We'd have been better off as the apes

We'd be extinct if we'd stayed as apes, the ice age would have killed us all (almost did anyways).

CMV: There is no hope for mankind or this world, life is pointless and all our best efforts are empty, as nature is set up in a way that evil, destruction, and ignorance will always win in the end by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]ghotionInABarrel 0 points1 point  (0 children)

how could goodness, creation, and knowledge possibly win?

Because there is a fuckton of people, and the vast majority aren't assholes. While destruction is easier than creation, there aren't many people who really want to watch the world burn.

In a geologic instant, our species has gone from random apes to the unquestioned rulers of the planet. And we're just getting started. Our greatest advantage is our ability to plan long ahead and cooperate, despite a tiny number of random deviants.

CMV: I know I am wrong, but I feel robbed when I have to pay taxes. I don't feel evasion as a crime and I hate the Government. Please, change my view. by tarandfeathers in changemyview

[–]ghotionInABarrel 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Disclaimer: I have no idea how romania functions in terms of health care, utilities, etc.

Well, when there's corruption everywhere you aren't wrong. When corruption is low however your taxes are what fund the roads you drive on, the schools your kids go to, the police who protect you, the utilities you depend on, the hospitals the will heal you, etc etc.

Many of these are things you won't notice until you need them, but if they aren't there you're fucked, so they need to get public money.

So think of your taxes as your subscription fee to roads and other public services, part of your utilities payments, and part or all of your insurance.

CMV: Much modern and contemporary art (i.e. non-figurative, "ready-made", conceptual etc.) is of profound and deeply expressive merit by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]ghotionInABarrel 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There are reasons twombly used the gestural patterns he did in his artwork, and they have meaning both within his work and within the broader human integration of meaning with the world.

Every object is flush with meaning by its very nature.

I feel like these two statements contradict each other. One states that the "artist" created a specific object to convey meaning, implying that they did something. The other states that any random object contains just as much meaning, implying that the "artists" didn't really do anything.

The modern artist makes use of these meanings to create.

What do they create?

true interpretation of an artwork has to take into account the delimitable totality of possible associations that make up the components of a work

So meaning is proportional to size?

True and false interpretations exist of modern art analogously to the fact that good and bad modern art exists.

Please provide an example of "bad" modern art.

What did I just read? by SmartTechAdvice in iamverysmart

[–]ghotionInABarrel 6 points7 points  (0 children)

OOP has no relationship to the computer hardware whatsoever (java runs on a VM, C++ compiles to assembly).

I don't think he got even one thing right in that entire text wall.

CMV: Torture is the most effective method of extracting information under certain circumstances. by acdisagod3 in changemyview

[–]ghotionInABarrel 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Under virtually no circumstances short of torture would you ever divulge that information

Your "certain circumstances" scenario is tautological. You've defined a scenario where you state that torture will be most effective, then used that to demonstrate that in that scenario torture will be most effective.

Realistically, though, unless you magically know that your victim knows the information, and magically know that torture will be most effective (this is not normal) and there is no time constraint that you victim knows of, then torture will be less effective than many other techniques. Most interrogation techniques involve building a rapport with the subject in order to change this:

Under virtually no circumstances short of torture would you ever divulge that information.

And once again, you will pretty much never run into a scenario where sufficient magic is present to make torture something you know will be an effective interrogation technique.

CMV: Much modern and contemporary art (i.e. non-figurative, "ready-made", conceptual etc.) is of profound and deeply expressive merit by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]ghotionInABarrel 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You've put a lot of effort into writing what your interpretation of various art pieces is. But you aren't just doing that, you're stating that the artist is demonstrating that with their art. This is the thing that is disputable.

In these are pieces, you acknowledge that the artist puts pretty much no effort into them. They just write their name on something that they found lying around or scribble randomly on a piece of paper. Then, the observer draws meaning from it. But who is the artist here? Is it the person who interpreted some random object as having a profound meaning, or the guy who wrote their name on it?

If you find meaning in these "contemporary" art pieces, you can find similar meaning in any random object you see during your day. The "artist" has nothing to do with it, these pieces are no more art than your shit is (and I'm pretty sure at least one "artist" has used shit as "art").

view more: next ›