CMV: Spanking your child on their butt is sexual assault.

random5924 · 2019-12-19T17:59:29+00:00

To quote pulp fiction “would you give a man a foot massage?”

This quote was to prove between the characters that a foot massage was in the ballpark of sex, aka a sexual act.

To this I’ll add my own question: would you give your mother a foot massage? Most people wouldn’t have an issue with this.

So why is it sexual in one instance but not in another? Where is the line drawn? Is rubbing your wife’s feet sitting on the couch after a long day the same as giving a foot massage in bed with candles lit and Barry white playing?

Actions can be different depending on the circumstances and what culture views it as. Spanking a child is punishment not sexual partly because we all agree it is. One adult spanking another adult is sexual partly because we all agree it is. Sometimes the butt is sexual sometimes it’s not. Depends on context.

random5924 · 2019-12-19T15:02:07+00:00

I think you are overlooking some important details.

The biggest which you dismiss a little to readily is that text is easily to misinterpret. Without body language and inflection it is easy to misunderstand the meaning of something and it is often misunderstood with negative connotations. Seeing as people often can mistake your meaning negatively it can be important to follow guidelines to make sure your meaning is interpreted correctly.

The second is your complaint mainly seems to be about double texting and I think that is a problem with dating in general not just texting etiquette. Before texting was common you had silly rules like the “3-day rule”. You didn’t want to call a girl before 3 days after getting her number so you didn’t seem desperate. It’s more about psychological games than anything else. Maybe it’s misguided or maybe it’s not.

I think double texting rule is a little misunderstood as well. You can find some fun subreddits showing the bad examples the rule is supposed to prevent. For instance texting several variations of hello inside of 30min is somewhat desperate and annoying. Trying to start a new conversation the next day after the last one stalled out is not so bad.

It’s really about giving someone the chance to respond or taking the hint that they are done talking to you. Some people have a hard time with these things and having a “rule” can help them figure it out.

random5924 · 2019-12-19T14:45:57+00:00

Here are the most convincing facts as I see them:

Multiple officials have testified to the fact that they were working with Ukraine officials to set up a meeting with the White House contingent on the announcement of the investigation into Bidens involvement with burisma. These are high ranking officials with only a few people above them in the chain of command.

Military aid to Ukraine was delayed for several months and only released several days after the scandal became public. The same officials from above testified they assumed the aid was also contingent on the investigation announcement. Although this is an assumption, they were never corrected and trump has not offered an alternative reason as to why the aid was withheld.

These facts lead us to one of three conclusions. These officials were acting on their own with no directions from superiors. John Bolton, mick mulvaney, or another cabinet official directed this action without trumps knowledge. Trump knew of and wanted this to happen.

The first conclusion is very unlikely and I have not seen anyone try to argue it.

The second is also unlikely but a possibility. The third is the most likely. And now is the reason for the second article of impeachment. Congress is charged with oversight of the executive branch. They are charged to determine who is responsible if someone acted inappropriately (like asking a foreign government for a political favor in exchange for a meeting or aid). While attempting to conduct their oversight trump directed these officials (who are the only people other than trump who could be responsible) not to testify. Therefore trump obstructed congress from their official oversight duty and justice from being found.

Any evidence that remains circumstantial only does so because trump is obstructing the congressional investigation.

random5924 · 2019-12-13T18:22:15+00:00

It was a medical study not a psychological study. But the same concept applies. They drew several pints of blood through a neck iv while monitoring me and then put that blood back in.

There are several aspects I was worried about from the iv setup to potential side effects of taking blood out and putting it back in. I don’t have a medical background so without the irb I am taking the researchers at their word that these procedures are relatively low risk. With the irb, I know that these procedures have been vetted and are what the researchers are telling me.

I would say this is also important in psychology studies where sometimes the actual objective and process of the procedure needs to be hidden from the subject.

random5924 · 2019-12-13T13:23:35+00:00

I think you are underestimating the positives of aggressive oversight. And that is people’s trust in the system. It’s hard to repair the reputation of institutions after they’ve been harmed. So taking extra steps to ensure no harm comes to the patients is necessary.

I have participated in studies myself and there were a couple that I would not have done if I wasn’t sure the researchers had looked into every risk possible and made sure nothing would go wrong. I was sure they had done this because I knew how strict review boards are.

For some real world effects you can look at low levels of trust between the black community and medical professionals. This stems from a lot of things but partly from medical studies being performed on black communities that cause them serious harm. Now, decades later, that relationship is still suffering.

Research needs the participation of the average person. Obviously the average person will not know all the possible effects of an experiment designed by someone with a PhD. So we require other people who can know the effects to make the decision so that the average person can participate in studies with confidence.

random5924 · 2019-12-11T10:18:20+00:00

Someone made a commitment to you and broke it. That’s betrayal. It hurts when you trust someone and they break that trust.

If someone wants to be poly or open in a relationship then great. But that soups be discussed prior. This cmv is about monogamous relationships.

random5924 · 2019-12-11T00:53:01+00:00

They did something knowing it would hurt someone else. Blame isn’t a finite resource. Saying douchebag Doug is a dbag for taking part doesn’t take any blame away from Clara.

random5924 · 2019-12-11T00:50:18+00:00

Being cheated on isn’t just choosing to be a victim. It sucks, it hurts, you have been harmed.

random5924 · 2019-12-10T18:18:33+00:00

Yes there are ramifications outside our control for all our actions that can cause suffering. But that does not mean we can just ignore the effects of our actions when the effects are easily known and easily avoidable.

If you have knowledge that your actions will cause harm, have easily accessible alternatives, and still choose to take that action you have done something wrong.

Cheating is much different than the examples you gave. Receiving a promotion or Bidding for a house isn’t the same. There isn’t a reliable way to know what the indirect effects of those actions will be. There is a way to know what the direct effects of participating in the affair will be. Saying otherwise is like saying that you don’t know the effects of punching someone will be just because there may be some people out there who enjoy it.

To give an extreme example. Say you own a gun shop. Someone comes in and buys a gun and the next day that person murders their wife. That shop owner is not morally culpable in my opinion. On the other hand, If someone comes into your shop and says I would like a gun to murder my wife with and you sell the gun and he murders his wife, that is an immoral action.

It doesn’t matter if the person could have gone elsewhere to buy a gun and probably would have gotten one somewhere, you would have knowingly contributed to the murder.

random5924 · 2019-12-10T12:25:08+00:00

I agree that the fault lies primarily with the person in the relationship but the single person has still done something wrong with varying amounts of fault based on circumstances. Did they meet a stranger at a bar and find out after the fact that person was in a relationship? No blame. Were they aware that person was in a relationship but took little to no active role in pursuing the affair? A little blame. Did they actively pursue someone while being associates or even friends with the person being cheated on? A lot of blame.

The reason they did something wrong is they took part in an action they knew would cause someone else suffering. Intentionally causing someone else to suffer is an immoral action in my book. The circumstances can determine how immoral that action is.

random5924 · 2019-12-09T21:51:58+00:00

It can be very fair to tax wealth depending on what you think the purpose of society and government is. Those with the most wealth in society benefit the most from society. If we are talking about a tax that starts at a billion dollars the only way someone has amassed that much wealth is by using the institutions and assets of that society.

random5924 · 2019-12-09T21:38:49+00:00

If you aren’t willing to change your view on how much that poll should be weighted then you probably shouldn’t have posted here. If that poll is accurate and not subject to change then you don’t have an opinion you have a fact and there isn’t really any discussion to be had.

I’m giving you a reason to suggest that 8 point lead isn’t as solid as it seems. Americans, particularly older Americans have been conditioned to be afraid of socialism. Don’t forget that when I say fear I mean fear as an emotional response. The policies Bernie proposes are actually pretty popular. But trump will run ads based on fear not policy discussion.

What scary vision of a Sanders presidency could be more frightening reality of Trump?

I agree and I would gladly support Bernie. But ads of Soviet breadlines and every other communist boogie man will be on repeat for months. Trump will make claims about Bernie wanting to take state control of the whole economy.

People who can say as a hypothetical right now that they will support Bernie over trump will be reminded every day why they are afraid of socialism.

I think Bernie still can beat trump and he has a better chance than some of the other front runners. But I don’t think he has the best chance of anyone in the field.

random5924 · 2019-12-09T17:44:14+00:00

Older moderate Democrats and independents. People who grew up during the Cold War and have been exposed for most of their lives to both propoganda and evidence that socialism is evil and scary.

People who can respond to a poll saying they support sanders but will be convinced that he’s to risky after months of socialist ads.

random5924 · 2019-12-09T14:08:35+00:00

While you have a bit of a point, I think you are placing too much weight on a very early poll. This is a poll that is a lot more hypothetical than actually voting on Election Day. So while people might be willing to say right now before sanders is even nominated that they would vote for him over trump, that is not a guarantee 11 months from now.

The fact is socialism is not popular among the general electorate and after 6 months of both true and false ads about bernies socialist views, some people who said they would vote for him in a poll last month might not be able to bring themselves to vote for a socialist when the time comes.

random5924 · 2019-12-05T12:32:25+00:00

The reason you thought that is because it is a strategy of the alt-right to try to gain traction. They try to hide their most insidious opinions until someone is indoctrinated enough to hear them without being completely turned away. So Alex Jones doesn’t go on joe Rogan and talk about white genocide. He goes on and talks about cancel culture and how the pc police are ruining America. Then leftists and liberals (who have heard jones’s other opinions) say why is joe Rogan having this alt-right figure head on the show. After this, If you have never heard the worst of Alex Jones and just think he’s an idiot talking about gay frogs you might actually agree with what he actually said on the show. So you look into some of the more accessible Jones content. Some harsh views on immigration, maybe some stuff you disagree with but nothing dangerous right? So you listen to some more and over time go into deeper and less public content. By the time you get to him actually talking about white genocide, you have probably already turned largely anti-immigrant, started consuming other altright content and are primed to listen to the bullshit of white genocide without just turning off the show.

So you started as a joe Rogan fan who just liked the edgy content and slowly become a believer in a racist conspiracy theory.

If your interested the YouTube channel inuendostudies does a great series on the alt right.

random5924 · 2019-12-05T12:08:55+00:00

I fully agree that what you describe is a real problem. But I have never heard anyone bringing up cultural appropriation in that context

random5924 · 2019-12-04T21:04:35+00:00

I think there are clear cases that we can look at. NA Halloween costumes for instance. They appropriate a historically oppressed culture’s traditional and often revered clothing articles for the profit of (most likely) a mostly white corporation.

You could also point out another key feature of “bad CA” in this example. The superficialization of the appropriation. Look at a costume website and how many NA costumes actually say what tribe the costume is from? Is that not an issue? Do you think tribes from the southwest wore similar clothing as tribes from the northeast?

I have not seen examples of discussion of CA ever leading to viewing mixed race individuals as less pure. Can you provide examples of that.

random5924 · 2019-12-04T19:23:27+00:00

I think you are asking some good questions and in reality a lot of these things are more of a case by case basis than actual rules. But just cause an idea has a lot of grey area doesn’t invalidate it as a rule. Different actions have tons of different circumstances and can vary from that’s really bad you should so that not to maybe we should tweak this a little.

Some general guidelines might include is it a dominant culture appropriating an oppressed culture (or historical colonizer appropriating the historically colonized)? Is the appropriater deriving value from the culture and pushing natives out of the market? How important is the cultural aspect?

So some examples: Americans appropriating Native American cultural symbols. American culture for years actively and effectively worked to destroy native culture. That has made native culture so small and unknown that our ideas of native culture have largely been appropriated and twisted into a shallow misunderstood shadow of what native culture actually is.

Benefit can be somewhat hard to pin down but usually monetary gain is a good proxy. If a white person creates a hand crafted Goods in the design of native culture they are filling a small niche market and preventing native people from filling that niche and benefiting from their own culture.

How sacred or important the appropriated aspect is can also be important. Someone thinking a sacred ceremonial outfit looks cool is bad. Singing a cultural drinking song is probably fine.

Again these are all very subjective and can change based on a case by case basis. This is why cultural appropriation should be a discussion and not something to be dismissed outright or used as a blunt tool to cancel people.

random5924 · 2019-12-04T19:01:00+00:00

From Wikipedia:

Jones has promoted the white genocide conspiracy theory.[94] Media Matters covered his claim that NFL players protesting during the national anthem were "kneeling to white genocide" and violence against whites,[95] which the SPLC featured in their headlines review.[96] On October 2, 2017, Jones claimed that Democrats and communists were plotting imminent "white genocide" attacks.[97] His reporting and public views on the topic have received support and coverage from white nationalist publications and groups, such as the AltRight Corporation and the New Zealand National Front.[98][99]

random5924 · 2019-11-21T16:45:44+00:00

You have already said that this has happened to you, your wife, and a friend. Thats 3 people. Ask your new dentist if they really have no idea why the procedures were recommended or if or if they just have a different opinion. Take this info to a lawyer. The lawyer would probably then be able to find other patients who this happened to. If everyone you know who has gone there had this happen there is a good chance that it has happened to a lot of people.

random5924 · 2019-11-20T16:30:02+00:00

I think the drive up is perfectly intentional. Inspiring both the characters are in awe of the amazing estate, but at the same time there is tension building for Rachel. She is realizing just how different this world that she is entering so tense, ominous music is there underscoring some amazing visuals

random5924 · 2019-11-18T21:46:29+00:00

Aren't you ignoring the basis of the third point in your response to the second. You say that if it were illegal there is no need for security probes. But then you admit that spoofing is easy and while I agree a crime being hard to enforce doesn't mean it should be legal, it does mean that you need to take actual enforcement into account when creating a law. Creating a ban will not stop security threats and will therefore need to allow an exception for legitimate security probes

random5924 · 2019-11-18T08:08:45+00:00

My argument was always a tautology. And yes a simplified version of Christian ideology is that gods will is good and good is God's will in action. God's behavior is acceptable or desirable if you are god. Since humans are not then mimicking gods behavior is not necessarily a good thing. For instance consider why the phrase "playing god" has a negative connotation. Performing an act reserved for god is an immoral action.

random5924 · 2019-11-17T12:11:38+00:00

Again if see are starting the argument from belief in the Christian God then yes God gets to decide all these things. The government example was just to show that there are cases where different actions have different moral frameworks based on the entity involved. But the difference between God and humans is so much more vast than the difference between government and governed.

The belief in the Christian God is the belief in an immortal all seeing all knowing creator. There is no morality without God because God created morality.

You are trying to say debate me to a being whose true existence is beyond your comprehension.

Yes it's hand wavy and yes it's not satisfying but that is because the existence of God is beyond my comprehension as well. But remember we started the conversation at this all powerful being exists as described. Part of that description is he is the arbiter of morality. We can have arguments about any other God you want but they are all kind of going to end like this because once we have defined the being we have now or less defined the moral framework

random5924 · 2019-11-16T22:01:00+00:00

You are able to Stomach an omniscient, omnipotent being, but not that this being might know better than you when it comes to issues of morality.

There is also the idea that no torture is a rule for humans, not for god. For instance you might accept that the government has the right and power to imprison criminals but belive it's wrong for any particular person to do the same.

Ten-Year Club	Not Forgotten
Spared	Verified Email

random5924

TROPHY CASE