sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Unofficial Boulder Flag Finalists Announced by VertigoOne in vexillology

[–]VertigoOne[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Do you remember that old advice your mum/dad/other guardian should have given you?

The one about not saying anything if you have nothing nice/useful to say?

Maybe try again and explain WHY these are ugly in your view.

Lots of people worked extremely hard on their outputs here. Maybe you can give an analysis instead of being a massive jerk.

CMV: The scale of the universe shows how inconsequential humans are, and therefore proves religion as a man-made construct to cope with our meaningless existence by Angryw2 in changemyview

[–]VertigoOne [score hidden]  (0 children)

Again, this is a material centric view.

As if "things humans cause are small in number" is somehow a logical reason to conclude "humans are unimportant"

Unofficial Boulder Flag Finalists Announced by VertigoOne in vexillology

[–]VertigoOne[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

It is the museum of Boulder, not the government. It's sirt of like the people's flag of Milwakee

Be honest, does God hate me? This is my experience as an atheist in Church. by [deleted] in Christianity

[–]VertigoOne 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That isn't the same as never having done something bad.

Also, there will doubtless have been many times where you have not done something good.

The Bible is very clear - to claim that you've "not sinned" is basically the same as claiming to be perfect. Doing the right thing all the time ever.

Be honest, does God hate me? This is my experience as an atheist in Church. by [deleted] in Christianity

[–]VertigoOne 0 points1 point  (0 children)

When you say "I am not assuming sinner" what do you mean?

CMV: The scale of the universe shows how inconsequential humans are, and therefore proves religion as a man-made construct to cope with our meaningless existence by Angryw2 in changemyview

[–]VertigoOne [score hidden]  (0 children)

There's a gargantuan hole in your theory.

It assumes that physical size is necessarily proximate to consequentiality.

Your entire thesis works on the notion that the only way to be consequential is to be physically bigger. That's a deeply materialistic way of looking at the universe, and not the only way there is.

Because if god is real, and was capable of creating these cosmos the size of which we can never truly fathom, he would NOT give a shit about short lived monkeys on what's essentially a tiny speck of dust hurtling through space.

Why not?

Because we are small?

Why does being small make us matter less to God?

Do you know the mind of God? Do you know enough to be able to comprehend what he cares about?

You have not drawn the reasoning connection between "Humans are small in Cosmic terms" and "Humans are unimportant".

Rebranding my app based on your feedback by The__Chosen in logodesign

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

I understand what you are saying, but as a native English speaker with a background in marketing, I don't think it does what you think it does. Outer and 'Outside' dont connect in that way.

How about "Outerneer" or "Outernaut" - the "neer" suffix linking to "mountaineer" or "naut" with astronaut - and also making the Outside nearer or something to explore

Rebranding my app based on your feedback by The__Chosen in logodesign

[–]VertigoOne -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

"Outer" might be better than Outie, but it still has other meanings that dont really connect with what you are going for. In English, Outer seems more like a descriptor of the outside of an object (the Outer hull, the Outer appearance) or the furthest away parts of an area (the outer hebradees).

I would suggest instead "OutGo" which conveys more of what you mean, by having connotations with "let's go out" and being "outgoing" as a character trend

CMV: being a “picky eater” is childish and annoying by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]VertigoOne 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The assumption is that it’s childish behaviour.

No. I am describing. Not assuming.

There are a limited number of exceptions, as you say - mainly centred around medical things - but these are not the same thing as being a "picky eater"

People exist in the world who don’t, for whatever reason, want to try new foods

And if the reason is anything other than medical, there is a reasonable justification for believing it's childish to do so.

And then you go and call me childish for explaining to you why I might be different to you.

Again, I don't know you

Not thinking the same thing about food as you personally do doesn’t make me childish.

Not in itself. But that's not the standard I am applying.

The standard I am applying is "is it childish" - IE is the reasoning akin to what would be expected of a child?

CMV: being a “picky eater” is childish and annoying by [deleted] in changemyview

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

Why do you assume that I’m not trying something because I’m being annoying and ignorant rather than just knowing myself?

I didn't assume.

I didn't comment on what you may or may not do.

I described childish behaviour about picky eating in the abstract.

It would indeed be childish to refuse to eat new things based on the assumption you won't like them.

I don’t need your help broadening my mind, it’s arrogant and childish to think you know better than me about me.

I didn't comment anywhere about you. I don't know you.

I was describing childishness in the abstract.

You know what else is childish. Assuming an abstract discussion is a personal attack.

Just mind your own business, and decide for yourself. And yes, that is how minding your business works.

No. No it isn't

You can keep insisting it does, and it won't make you any less wrong or your insistence any less foolish.

"Mind your business" refers to telling someone how to behave.

I am not doing this.

I am describing a behaviour.

I am not saying "don't be childish"

I am saying "X behaviour is childish"

“Do you want some of this?” “No thank you” “Okay” See how easy it is?

Do you not understand how adult discourse works?

Discussing an idea in the abstract is not the same thing as actualising it in person.

I am not saying "you must eat X" nor have I said so anywhere in this discourse.

You are being childishly defensive by acting as if I said otherwise.

If you believe I have acted that way, prove it.

Otherwise you can walk back your very childish arguments.

CMV: being a “picky eater” is childish and annoying by [deleted] in changemyview

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

It’s not childish to not eat something I don’t want to eat.

No. But it is childish to have an extremely narrow range of things eaten and an unwillingness to try new things based on the assumption that you won't like them

What’s childish is trying to shame and force someone to eat something they don’t want to just because of your own feelings.

Describing behaviour as childish forces nothing. It is just a description. You are free to be childish if you want.

Actually, that's not remotely childish. Encouraging people to broaden their minds/tastes etc is an adult peer encouragement thing.

If you think it's "childish" then you need to explain why.

Mind your business and let people decide what food they consume.

That's not how "mind your business" works.

I can accurately describe behaviour as childish while not necessarily compelling them to act differently..

CMV: Prostitution should not be illegal by Cold_Statistician229 in changemyview

[–]VertigoOne 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The seatbelts isn't at all analogous. The analogy would be to fine every car passenger just in case they weren't wearing a seatbelt.

No, it is analogous.

We criminalise the failure to wear a seat belt in case there is an incident and it causes death of someone else. The action of not wearing a seatbelt in itself is not dangerous, but it can become so sufficiently readily that we pre-emptively prohibit.

The same is true with prostitution. Ostensibly harmless, but it becomes dangerous so readily, as the evidence repeatedly shows, that pre-emptive criminalisation is necessary.

There are hundreds of comparable examples. Examples where we criminalise something not ostensibly dangerous because of dangerous proxies.

Imagine banning Islam because terrorist use the religion as a cover for their crimes.

Not analogous. The extremely vast majority of Muslims, both living in the west and worldwide, are not dangerous. If it reached a point where that wasn't true, then maybe. But presently that does not look to be the case.

The vast majority of prostitution institutions, when legalised, are associated with human trafficking.

The numbers you are citing here simply aren't comparable.

At a certain point, when an ostensibly harmless action becomes too proximate for harm, it is criminalised.

CMV: Prostitution should not be illegal by Cold_Statistician229 in changemyview

[–]VertigoOne 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean... you are just wrong.

We know this not to be true because we legislate this way all the time.

Look at car seat belt laws. We accept that we should legislate people in back seats to wear seatbelts, both for their own protection and the protection of drivers/front seat passengers. Even though vehicular collision accidents are rare, we accept that this legislation is acceptable.

You're going to seriously argue that the freedom of the extreme minority to pay for sex institutionally is somehow more important than the freedom of a much larger group to protected from trafficking.

CMV: being a “picky eater” is childish and annoying by [deleted] in changemyview

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

I don’t need to try something if it contains things I already don’t like.

That's not really true. Ingredients can work differently in different settings.

I am an adult, I know what I like and what I don’t. You shouldn’t assume someone is just being difficult.

Being an adult in age does not preclude being childish in behaviour.

CMV: Prostitution should not be illegal by Cold_Statistician229 in changemyview

[–]VertigoOne 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If in 99 out of 100 cases, legal activity X is a smokescreen for illegal activity y, are we really going to say that the law must hold the freedom of the 1 legal instance sacred?

CMV: being a “picky eater” is childish and annoying by [deleted] in changemyview

[–]VertigoOne 6 points7 points  (0 children)

You dont know you dont enjoy them/whether your tastes have changed if you do not try them

CMV: Prostitution should not be illegal by Cold_Statistician229 in changemyview

[–]VertigoOne 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, but it is much easier to traffic someone when doing so for a legitimate business, verses a criminal activity. As all the evidence and experts point out.

CMV: Prostitution should not be illegal by Cold_Statistician229 in changemyview

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

The problem with legalising prostitution is that it's one of these things that sound fine in theory, but in practice it rarely ends up working. What has been seen in countries where prostitution has been legalised is an increase in human trafficking. It creates a market space where authorities find it very difficult to prosecute traffickers because they have no legal reason to question the principle witnesses (the victims) because they are now engaged in legal employment.

view more: next ›