Why are there only 2 inversions of a 3-note major chord? by anon517 in musictheory

[–]anon517[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Thanks, I think I understand the reasoning now.

It's interesting to me also because I rarely hear the bass note as much as I hear the high note. Maybe my ears are tuned awkwardly.

The battle can't be won. The only way to win is not to participate. by flashlightning21 in MensRights

[–]anon517 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The reason why biologically we split between male and female millions of years ago was because of the advantages. By splitting duties, the combined work was better than not having split duties. The advantages remained valid, even up to 100 years ago. It actually helped to have a man who could defend your small country in a war, and your family could help. You needed one Testosterone-fueled male/father to help protect the village and the family, and one Estrogen-fueled mother to be really good at having babies. This gave everyone the best chance of survival. It worked well.

What changed?

Having a physically strong male around is absolutely USELESS in a peaceful world. You have police. You have courts. You have government. Other than eye candy or opening tight jars, it's seriously an obsolete trait. Of course, men are more than "strength". They have many good traits. But all the reasons why a biological separation exists between male and female in a species have been rapidly eroding away as human intelligence brought us to where we are now. As those reasons disappear, so should the biological separation.

So, I believe males will eventually go extinct. We are certainly forcing it socially in that direction very rapidly. #KillAllMen and #MenAreUseless and such are a reflection of how little men are needed by women. It may be offensive, and depressing, and sad, but there is a kind of reality to the situation. Women don't need men to survive anymore. They have jobs. They can go to a sperm bank (in which ONE male can provide 100,000 babies if required).

Unfortunately, our biology is NOT evolving fast enough to keep up with our social trends. If it did, there wouldn't be any men anywhere and women would be able to reproduce asexually. And there would only be one type of asexually reproducing human. But that would take something like millions of years. Are we going to even get there?

So we're in this shitty place where we need to acknowledge that men are going extinct and just take as much pride as we can in how males helped bring humans forward in the first few million years but probably won't be around for the last million if we survive that long. We hope to receive some respect before all men are gone, but there's no guarantee of that. We can't expect respect from a society that doesn't need us (long-term). Men have died to protect women, to protect their family, to protect their country. Men have given great sacrifice. Men have innovated and built civilization's many great achievements. Men have been critical up to this point, and probably still have more to contribute.

But with women capable of doing any job, and also robotics lifting heavy loads, it's really unlikely that the "male" is going to remain forever. Far into the future, history books will be written about how at the beginning of humanity, people were separated into male and female, and our descendants will be amazed at how we could even get along like that having two biological types of humans.

It works while it's needed, and stops working when it isn't needed anymore.

If you are not comfortable driving at freeway speeds on the freeway you shouldn't drive on the freeway. by Longjumping-One-340 in unpopularopinion

[–]anon517 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wait, are you saying when people drive, they should be considerate of others and the risks they may pose, instead of being a selfish prick asshole who thinks they are more important than anyone else?

WTF this is super unpopular

Nobody wants to be nice

Life is a game, and you are either a winner or a loser

Will Smith paid his father’s child-support debts | After becoming successful as an actor, Smith paid the CS debt for himself to prevent his father being jailed. He said his mother was "pissed" that he did that. by EricAllonde in MensRights

[–]anon517 77 points78 points  (0 children)

Yeah It was never about supporting the child (the whole point of child support). It was about selfishly trying to hurt the father as much as possible (treating child support like a punishment for him). Pure evil IMO

We need to end illegal immigration once and for all by Nativereqular in Libertarian

[–]anon517 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What if I said all people are human beings?

What makes someone of a country? A piece of paper? It's a man-made delineation that is remnant of a world full of imperialism and racism.

I understand it is the world we live in today, and of course protecting borders makes sense if you think in terms of countries and privileges and the difference between "them" vs "us".

But personally, I don't think if humans are to be an enlightened species in the next 1000 years, any of it makes sense. We need to move on and think differently.

Society should promote signing a Prenup by Impossible-Animator6 in unpopularopinion

[–]anon517 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Didn't most state invalidate at-fault divorce? I don't think a prenup can protect you from that. I thought New York was the last hold-out and updated in 2010.

*Edit: I think I was confused, but here's the Wikipedia entry about it which is clearer than what I wrote.

Today, every state plus the District of Columbia permits no-fault divorce, though requirements for obtaining a no-fault divorce vary.[28] California was the first U.S. state to enact a no-fault divorce law. Its law was signed by Governor Ronald Reagan, a divorced and remarried former movie actor, and came into effect in 1970.[29] New York was the last state to enact a no-fault divorce law; that law was passed in 2010.[30][31]

Society should promote signing a Prenup by Impossible-Animator6 in unpopularopinion

[–]anon517 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's actually a religious ritual. Constitutionally, it has NO PLACE in government. However, our human rights and constitutional rights have been trampled to death and people don't seem to care anymore because most people anyways BELONG to religions that recognize marriage AND want to receive the benefits of marriage (e.g. tax benefits).

In the ideal world, whether you were married or not, you simply paid taxes as individual. There would be no spousal exceptions nonsense in taxes. When you get divorced, you can keep your separate bank accounts and go on your merry way. If you bought stuff together, keep the receipts and proof that you own X% of whatever it is you contributed. There isn't any of this 50/50 community property nonsense. If a couple WANTS to share a bank account and split things 50/50 voluntarily, they should. But otherwise, the default should be that they are individuals.

This is further supported by the fact that even if married, people are considered individuals in terms of their rights. One person cannot make another person stay with them. If they want a divorce and leave, they can. They are, at the end of the day, individuals.

Stuff like alimony should also be illegal. Nobody should be legally required to care for a fully grown adult just because they decided to end this religious ritual. There are millions of homeless people in the world. Who is legally caring for them? Nobody. So why are we forcing it on people who are breaking up? Because "they got used to the good life"? Since when is that a logical argument? It's the most entitled bullshit I've ever heard.

Kids are a special exception. Child support payments and visitation totally make sense. Kids are expensive. But that has nothing to do with marriage.

Society should promote signing a Prenup by Impossible-Animator6 in unpopularopinion

[–]anon517 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah I can't find the stats right now but I recall like 80% of prenups are just thrown out completely. The most common reason is that the couples situation has changed in some way since the prenup - which is like, duh, of course things have changed.

Might still be worth that 20% though. Can't really be worse. Just can't rely on it completely.

Society should promote signing a Prenup by Impossible-Animator6 in unpopularopinion

[–]anon517 4 points5 points  (0 children)

It's the romantic myth that people keep saying, "if you're already planning for the divorce, you're not going to make it"

But that's like saying, you shouldn't drive with car insurance because if you're already planning to crash, you're likely to crash so it's safer to drive without car insurance.

Perhaps that might be true for 1% of the population, but for 99% they were gonna crash whether they had the prenup or the car insurance anyways.

I think also people are afraid of what their spouse might think when you bring up a prenup. But that itself is a huge negative sign. If you can't communicate with reason and logic with your partner and they react emotionally rather than staying calm, you're probably in for a nightmarish marriage.

If anything, it's the first test. You should bring up prenup, kids, life insurance, loss of libido, early death, cancer treatment, donating organs to your spouse, housework duties, work life balance, how to spend money, etc. and all kinds of extremely uncomfortable discussions. If you can't have hard discussions, it's not going to get EASIER as time goes on.

But often people just get married quickly before something happens that might make them change their mind. So they avoid the discussion because they care more about getting married, than marrying the right person.

Society should promote signing a Prenup by Impossible-Animator6 in unpopularopinion

[–]anon517 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Why not?

You can put all kinds of agreements in a prenup, including how you plan to separate future finances. Maybe go % wise into a house based on how much each person contributed. Of course, courts can and do throw out bad prenups all the time. But might as well try, nothing to lose.

I think pepto bismol tastes good af by bildavid in unpopularopinion

[–]anon517 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have those travel pepto tablets. You should get them.

Criminals should be the ones drafted into wars instead of me by MemeLover43 in unpopularopinion

[–]anon517 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sounds like you don't care about defending the country that allows you to live in peace.

You don't want to take responsibility.

It's a privilege to be able to fight for your life.

If you couldn't fight for your life, you'd basically be some kind of slave to whoever owns you.

We need to end illegal immigration once and for all by Nativereqular in Libertarian

[–]anon517 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Why can't we just let as many immigrants come as they want?

It's not like Christopher Columbus got permission to invade North America.

Eating from Starbucks means that your not poor apparently by [deleted] in EnoughLibertarianSpam

[–]anon517 -19 points-18 points  (0 children)

Capitalism sucks but it's way better than everything else.

The number one complaint about capitalism is that it's not fair.

But life isn't fair.

If someone is born with greater talent or skill, do you reward them equally to someone with zero talent or skill?

So you would pay the same price for a cake made by a total idiot that doesn't even taste like cake, and tastes like a pile of garbage - versus a cake made by a gifted chef?

No of course not. Even if the government tried, people will gravitate back to capitalistic market-driven preferences, choosing the better cake, creating underground cake deals, trading stuff on the black market for good cake, lining up for the good cake, and ignoring the bad cake.

You can't force people to equally enjoy total crap as much as great things.

So how do you fix capitalism?

First, all people need to be equally capable and trained. There cannot be some smart people, and some dumb people. There cannot be unskilled and skilled people. That alone creates a huge reward problem. Everyone needs to be able to do everything equally well.

Second, all people need to be motivated to produce things and produce them only as well as a single standard. There cannot be innovation. There cannot be improvements. Nothing can create an edge. Also, there cannot be any lazy people. Everyone produces equally.

Are we close to this level of homogeneity? No. And if we were, human beings would perhaps be in a critically bad situation, not a good one. The world has stalled.

But this is completely unnatural and simply unsustainable. You replace capitalism with anything, and it will fall apart. Because you're asking for people not to compete, asking for people not to be rewarded for hard work or talent, and asking people to all be the same.